Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1968/01/03 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA January 3, 1968 The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on the above date at 7 p.m., in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Guava Avenue, with the following members present: Stewart, York, Hyde, Gregson, Rice, Adams, and Guyer. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, Planning Draftsman Irish, City Attorney Lindberg and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (York-Adams) Minutes of the meeting of December 18, 1967, be approved as mailed. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIA~NCE 340 Fourth Avenue - Reduction in setback and increase in height for signs - Chula Vista Doctors' Park Director of Planning Warren informed the Commission that this request was improperly advertised, and would be readvertised for the January 15 meeting. The Commission filed this matter. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE (Cont'd) - 211 CHurch Avenue R-3 use on property zoned C-2 - Nyle and Marie Grey The application was read in which a request was made for permission to construct six units five apartments and one office on property at 211 Church Avenue. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the lcoation, the adjacent land uses and zoning. He stated the site is zoned C-2 and therefore a variance would be necessary for the applicant to con- struct these residential units. They will provide five off-street parking spaces off the alley; the existing building on the lot will be removed. In the R-3 zones, 1~ parking spaces per unit is required. In this instance, the applicants are in a parking district which ne- gates the off-street parking requirement for uses permitted in the zone. The zoning ordinance states that any residential use must provide park- ing on-site; therefore, if the variance is granted, the Commission will also be approving less than normally required parking. Mr. Warren delineated the staff recommendation for approval. -2- The Commission discussed the needed parking spaces under the R-3 re- quirements which Mr. Warren related would be 8 spaces. Chairman Stewart felt the Commission should assume that at one time or another, the office unit may become vacant and used as an apartment unit. If this were a reasonable assumption, then the Commission should require 9 spaces for this complex. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mrs. Marie Gray, the applicant, stated she was present to answer any questions. Mr. Warren noted for the record that Mrs. Gray stated she does not own the property to the north, as indicated in the staff report. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was was declared closed. Member Adams remarked that the plan falls short of the needed parking spaces. Member Rice commented that the goal was to upgrade the City and not to downgrade it; the Commission should certainly require more parking spaces. Mrs. Gray, 205 Church Street, the applicant, asked why she was required to provide these required spaces. Chairman Stewart explained the ordinance's requirements to her. Director Warren commented that in the initial discussions with the ap- plicants, it was her opinion that because the apartments would be situated so close to downtown, most of her tenants would be pedestrians and not own cars. The Commission discussed the distance of the nearest parking district to the proposed apartments (one-half block), and the requirements for off-street parking in R-3 zones. Mr. Warren noted that the off-street parking requirements for residential use doesn't apply to the zone-- it applies to residential use. He added that what they are saying all along is that residential use is not permitted in a commercial zone-- to do this, you must have a variance and the Commission can grant a variance for the parking, if they so desire. City Attorney Lindberg discussed the zoning ordinance provision concern- ing off-street parking for residential use as it relates to commercial zones. -3- Chairman Stewart discussed the matter whereby parking districts are established for its use and if, at some time in the future, the City feels there is no further need for this parking lot, it can sell the lot for other use. In essence then, if the Commission approved this variance for public parking use, and then the public parking lot were eliminated at some future time, the applicant would not be meeting the requirements for parking for her apartment complex. City Attorney Lindberg explained that it should be recognized that all property owners within this parking district could be subject to a tax to support the parking lot within that district, whether they are resi- dential or business uses the assessment is levied against all prop- erty owners in that district. Member York felt it would be unfair, because of a particular use in that zone, for the applicants to have to provide on-site parking and still have the continued liability of possibly having to pay for park- ing for uses in this parking district. The assessed valuation would not be based only on the commercial use but that they will be paying taxes based on the value of their entire project--in effect, they would be paying taxes based on the assessment of their entire project. Chairman Stewart asked if the property owners have had any assessments on the parking lots up to now. City Attorney Lindberg stated there has been none. Member York remarked that, as a matter of principle, how can the Com- mission allow a development such as this within a parking district and also require them to provide on-site parking? The five parking spaces the applicants are provided are over and above what they would have to provide if they put in a commercial use. It is the obligation of the parking district to provide the spaces needed within that district and you cannot state it is for commercial, residential or any other kind of use. City Attorney Lindberg felt this is clearly what the ordinance indi- cates, and in all probability, the lots provided in these parking dis- tricts won't satisfy the needs within them. Member York commented that these districts are not set up in the resi- dential areas, and this is clearly where they will run into these problems. Mr. Warren discussed the advocation of the General Plan for this area noting that it was high density and office use. The commercial trend does not exist on the east side of this street. If the Commission ap- proved the variance, they will be approving it in concept only, subject to the approval of more detailed plans in the future. Member York commented that even if a rezoning does take place here sometime in the future, would the site still remain in the parking dis- trict, or could they de-annex? City Attorney Lindberg stated that there can be modification of the boundaries of the district; however, this would not be a feasible thing, especially in this circumstance because we do have parking lots relatively close to this area. -4- Mr. Lindberg commented that there is a peculiar situation here with the R-3 usage - if the area were rezoned, there would, in all probability, be a modification of the ordinance relating to the satisfaction of the parking requirements with the parking district concept so that it would pin down fairly clearly to commercial, and perhaps give some reasonable relief to the R-3 property owner. Director Warren noted that this is what is proposed in the new zoning ordinance, and before adopting, the staff will be asking for a legal opinion on it. Member Rice felt they may be setting a precedent for things occurring in the future. Chairman Stewart explained the reason for requiring off-street parking - to get these cars off the street. He indicated that none of the tenants living in these proposed apartments will be using the parking district lot. Mr. Stewart added that the condition to provide offstreet parking in accordance to the requirements of the zoning ordinance if they approve this variance should be made. Member Adams declared it would be wrong for the Commission to fill these parking lots with residential use when they are designed for com- mercial use. He added that the C-O zone should require off-street parking for the residential uses. MSC (Hyde-Rice) Variance be approved subject to the following: 1. Adequate off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Section 33.51 of the zoning ordinance. 2. Preliminary plot plans (including landscaping plans) and eleva- tions shall be submitted for Planning Commission approval. Final plans shall be submitted for staff approval. 3. The existing street tree shall be retained or replaced with a tree acceptable to the City. 4. Any permanent sign to be erected on the property must be approved by the Planning staff and conform to R-3 regulations concerning maximum size. 5. A front setback of 10' minimum shall be maintained. 6. The applicant shall sign an agreement prepared by the City Attorney attesting to the fact that they will not protest paying their share of the adjacent alley at such time in the future an improvement project is approved by the City. Findings be as follows: -5- a. That the strict application of the zoning regulations or require- ments would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the regulations. Under the present zoning ordinance, the zone variance is the only method to allow residential and commercial construction on the same parcel. 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 proposed development is designed to conform with the existing properties in the area. 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. Since the proposed use is compatible with the uses existing, there will be no detrimental effect. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objec- tives of the General Plan. The General Plan indicates a residential-office use for this area. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Hyde, Rice, Gregson, Stewart, Adams and Guyer NOES: Member York ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE 92 "D" Street - Reduction of side setback 5' to -' - John F. Lusher The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction of side yard setback from 5' to zero for the purpose of retaining an existing non-conforming carport. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, adjacent land use and zoning. He explained that this situation came about as the result of a lot split by a previous owner. The location of this carport was shown on the lot split with a notation that it would be removed or altered to meet the City Code requirements. The applicant now finds that he cannot do this since most of his rear yard consists of a steep slope. He proposes to remove approximately 17' off the front of this structure, add a fire wall to the side of the property line, add a rear wall, and construct a garage door to the front of the struc- ture. Director Warren indicated that the house and carport were built in 1959 prior to the first ordinance requiring covered parking. -6- This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Member Adams discussed the situation, commenting that he favored grant- ing the request subject to rebuilding the structure, as proposed by the applicant. This matter was not the fault of the applicant's - it was a situation that was handed to him. Member Guyer agreed, adding that it would be too expensive to construct anything in this rear yard because of the steep slope. Member Adams suggested a condition be made requiring the applicant to reconstruct the remaining portion of the structure to conform to the City's Code requirements. MSUC (Guyer-Gregson) Approval of variance subject to the following con- ditions: 1. The approval is in accordance with the plot plan submitted at this meeting. 2. The remaining portion of the structure shall be reconstructed to conform to Building Code requirements. Findings be as follows: a. That the strict application of the zoning regulations or require- ments would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the regulations. In order to comply with zoning regulations both the carport and the patio would have to be removed. b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use or development of the i~Dperty that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone or neighborhood. The steep slope immediately to the rear of the existing structure makes it practically impossible to relocate the structure the re- quired distance. 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. The structure has been in existence for nine years without any apparent detriment. The applicant plans to remove the portion of structure which will leave the windows of the adjacent dwel- ling unobstructed. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objec- tives of the General Plan. The General Plan would not be affected by this proposal. -7- PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE - 630 "L" Street - Reduction of front set- back 25' to 1' - The Sierra Company The application was read in which a request was made to locate a 10' x 12' sign within 1' of the front property line. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the site and of the proposed sign, the adjacent zoning and land uses. He noted that the pole for the sign would be 7' from the front prop- erty line and the sign would extend to within 1' of the property line. The applicants have not determined the height of this sign, but it will be perhaps 24' to 26' high; there are presently no restrictions for signs in the M-1 zone. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Ray Crowell, representing Westy's Lumber Company, indicated that the sign should be placed within the setback area in the event Ratner's ever landscaped their setback area as originally proposed. Mr. Warren reviewed the condition as suggested by the staff that the applicant provide street trees at 35' intervals and that they be a minimum of 6' in height. Mr. Crowell stated this was acceptable. He added that they employ a landscape architect to design their plans and also that maintenance of this landscape will be assured. As to the height of their proposed sign, this depends upon the height of the trees. As recommended by the City staff, the trees proposed would grow to a height of 25'; consequently, the sign must be above that. Director Warren noted that the proposed signs would actually total 108 square feet. It should be stated that the sign be non-moving and non- flashing. Mr. Crowell declared the top of this sign would be 32 feet because of the trees. The Secretary read a letter of protest from Ratner Manufacturing Company. There being no further comment, either for or against, the public hear- ing was declared closed. Member Adams felt that 30' may be unnecessarily high, that the sign should conform to the requirements of that proposed in the new zoning ordinance. Mr. Warren indicated that in this particular zone and in the heavier commercial zones, the height would be 30' if the proposed new ordinance is adopted. -8- MSUC (York-Rice) Variance be approved subject to the following condi- tions: 1. Street trees shall be placed at 35' intervals. Such trees shall be a minimum of 6' in height. Landscaping plans shall be approved by the Director of Planning. Landscaped areas shall be permanently maintained. 2. The freestanding sign shall De non-moving and non-flashing and shall not exceed 30' in overall height. Findings be as follows: a. That the strict application of the zoning regulations or require- ments would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the regulations. A primary reason for setbacks is to keep buildings back from the front property line to assure proper vision for traffic safety. The sign as proposed would not violate this criterion since only the pole will be within the vision area. 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. Traditionally setback variances have been granted for signs with the recognition that, while commercial and industrial buildings need not be close to a street, its identification should be readily seen from the street in time for a motorist to negotiate a safe turning movement onto the property. 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. In the immediate vicinity of the subject property, numerous signs exist which are on or very near the front property line without any apparent detrimental effect. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objec- tives of the General Plan. The General Plan would not be affected by this proposal. -9- PUBLIC NEARING: VARIANCE - East side Woodlawn Avenue, south of "H" Street - Front setback 25' to 12', 2' at cul-de-sac Diversified Enterprises The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction in front setback from 25' to 12' and 2' at the cul-de-sac on property located on the east side of Woodlawn Avenue, south of "N" Street, for the purpose of constructing 60 apartment units. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, zoning, and adjacent land uses. He explained the proposed parking layout and declared that this parallels the initial application. This request has not changed materially than that initially approved. Be- cause of this, the staff recommends approval subject to the same condi- tions and findings as the original request. City Attorney Lindberg suggested that comments from the people in the audience be limited to those pertaining to any changes made. This re- quest must be treated as an entirely new application; however, if the applicant is willing, he should request that all of the previous tes- timony given at the last public hearing be made a part of this record. Chairman Stewart explained the need for this variance that the time has elapsed on his original variance (the six-month period of time) during which work on this project should have commenced. The appli- cant is ready to submit his plans but the refiling of this variance was necessitated due to his lack of obtaining an extension of time. The Chairman requested that if there is nothing new to add to the previous testimony, the speakers dispense with any repetitious testi- mony. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. For the record, Mr. Warren reviewed the two conditions imposed on the original variance. Mr. Norman Seltzer, associated with Diversified Enterprises, requested that all previous testimony and records of the previous hearing on this matter be incorporated into the record and made a part of these pro- ceedings. Mr. Seltzer stated that they have nothing new to add except to state that since the original variance was granted, they have pre- pared complete and detailed plans and specifications. They have ob- tained a commitment for a loan and are now ready to commence construc- tion almost immediately upon approval of this variance. They are in complete accord with the requirements of the Planning Department. Mr. Norman Flowers, manager of the present Woodlawn Gardens apartments, asked for approval of this variance commenting that the new apartments would be an asset to the City. He stated that at least once a year he has to pay the Fire Department to come down and clean up this lot in question. -10- Mrs. Lila Sutterfield, 522 Oaklawn, stated the residents in this area would like the chance to speak to the owners of Diversified Enterprises in regard to some of their problems which will be associated with this new development. Chairman Stewart asked Mrs. Sutterfield to contact the owners after the meeting. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission discussed the request and concurred they were in favor of granting it since there were no changes made from the initial appli- cation. MSUC (Stewart-Rice) Approval of the variance subject to the following conditions: 1. The testimony and statements made at the meeting of April 17, 1967 be made a part of this record. 2. Landscaping plans shall be brought in for approval by the Director of Planning prior to obtaining a building permit. 3. That some form of protective bumper be devised to prevent vehicular damage to the fence along the easterly property line. Findings be as follows: a. That The strict application of the zoning regulations or require- ments would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the regulations. The setback on the west side of Woodlawn Avenue has never been established and thus was set at 25' which is deeper than that existing on the east side of the street and thus results in an unnecessary hardship. 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. Every other parcel fronting on the street has a 12' setback and a portion of the parcel with frontage on the cul-de-sac has a 2' setback. The applicant merely wishes to have the same privilege. 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. -ll- The applicant owns every parcel fronting on Woodlawn, and thus this request affects only his property which already enjoys the requested setback. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objec- tives of the General Plan. The General Plan will not be affected by this proposal. The City Attorney explained the right for any appeal to the City Coun- cil within 10 days of this meeting date. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 3600 Edgemere Road - Estab- lishment of public campground - Bell, Bonnet and Peters The application was read in which a request was made to establish a public campground on land located at 3600 Edgemere Road. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the proposed campground as being on the east side of Edgemere Road north of Vista Hill Sanitarium and encompassing 6.3 acres of land. He noted the prezoning for this area recommended to City Council by the Commission is F-l, A and A-F-2. He indicated that the proposed flood control channel will pass through the lower part of the property. The City Council has just taken action on the prezoning and it will become effective 30 days from next Tuesday (February 9). This conditional use permit will not be final until both the prezoning and annexation proceedings are final. The applicants in- dicate there will be some tents on the premises and this may have to be approved by the Fire Marshal. There will be 72 campsites. Mr. Warren then discussed the proposed landscaping and reviewed the condi- tions of approval. City Attorney Lindberg clarified that the permit will become effective after annexation to the City is completed and the 6-month period of time for the permit will commence at that effective date. There is still the contingency of no adoption after public hearings of the un- classified use zone as adopted by emergency ordinance which is effective for 3 months. Mr. Lindberg then discussed the first condition -- limitation of sales; he felt this condition was infeasible. He indi- cated the condition should be stated in terms of limitation of the advertising on-site allowed so as not to be permitted to attract the general motoring public or pedestrians along the highway, and that the store not be allowed to operate unless the campsite itself is in opera- tion. In this way, it would be restricted to the use of the campsite. Mr. Warren concurred, indicating that this was the staff's intent. Member Adams questioned what would happen if the new ordinance was not adopted after the emergency ordinance went into effect; what would happen if the applicants got started on their project. -12- City Attorney Lindberg stated that if they commenced their development, they would then have the vested right; however, he is assuming that this is a contingency they will not have to cope with. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared opened. Mr. Ted Bell, one of the applicants, explained the project. They are proposing to put in approximately 90 trees and 90 shrubs~ they will maintain 3 acres of lawn area. Mr. Bell, referring to their site de- velopment, said they have checked with the County parks and the County now has a new concept of developing their sites with decomposed granite and pea gravel. They do this for cleanliness and maintenance, and found that it works much better than all grass sites. As to the establishment of tents on the premises, there is a City ordinance pro- hibiting this; however, this was first established by the City Council mainly to prevent labor camps and the like. They can see no problem in getting this ordinance changed. Mr. Bell added that the signs will be standard KOA signs and will blend into the area very well. The site itself will be patterned after the standards of KOA~ however, each site deviates slightly depending on the topography and location of the site itself. Mr. N. Richardson, administrator of Vista Hill Sanitarium, stated they would like to have assurance that such a campsite will not have an ad- verse effect upon their hospital. This is a psychiatric hospital and, more and more, they are opening up their grounds to the patients. To have a campsite adjacent to them, there may be a noise problem, such as with motorcycles. City Attorney Lindberg stated that they cannot make a specific prohi- bition against motorcycles in this campsite; however, the City does have a noise ordinance. If there is a noise problem here, it will be strictly enforced. Mr. Richardson discussed the question of access, and asked that if grading is involved, would it chop off the end of their property. This would generate a cliff and be a possible danger to them. City Attorney Lindberg indicated that they would want to examine any grading plan the applicants propose to use in the development of this site. Mr. Warren declared that whatever grading takes place will be done on their own property. The applicants would have to submit more detailed plans in that regard. Mr. Richardson then questioned whether the City has an ordinance as do other cities - whereby you must maintain a degree of quietness around hospitals. San Diego presently has such an ordinance. Mr. Richardson discussed an area around Bird Rock which was just disapproved for a hospital site because of this quiet zone. -13- Mr. Lindberg stated the City has no such ordinance, but that he will check this out. Mr. Bell stated the lighting they propose will be of a low-density as in keeping with the rules of a campsite whereby people come to rest and relax. The State Law requires two foot candle power and they will come close to this - enough light to maintain safety throughout the campsite. Extra lighting will be on around the building and recreation area but only up to the time it is time to retire, say 10 p.m. All these lights will be directed down onto these areas for its use. As to the potential noise problem delineated by Mr. Richardson, Mr. Bell felt this was mainly directed to the back country whereby these people are more apt to have motorcycles, etc. They are locating their campsite in the city and would not be attracting this sort of patronage. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Guyer indicated his favor toward this request commenting there is a need for this type of development in the city. Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, discussing condition No. 4, stated the intent here is that it will be an oiled surface--that it is to be maintained in a dust-free condition. Normally, Mr. Gesley continued, when he thinks of pavement, he thinks of asphalt concrete over a base, and here they are talking about the entire area marked on the plot plan (shaded in blue). He added that he talked to the applicant about this- that this might be maintained in a dust-free condition, but whether or not this is acceptable is up to the Commission. Mr. Ted Bell stated they propose to put decomposed granite in the area marked F-1 zone since this may become inundated from time to time. First, they would like to try a chemical dust-inhibitor. According to their franchise, they have to keep the park in a dust-free condition. They will be subjected to three different inspections on this: the franchise inspectors, the State Division of Housing and the City's building inspectors. The Commission discussed with Mr. Bell the suggestion of putting in AC concrete in the F-2 zone and other areas not subjected to flooding and gravel or decomposed granite in the F-1 area. Mr. Bell felt this would be too expensive and explained the slow traffic flow prevalent in these campsites for which reason they would prefer to put in decomposed granite with an oil penetration, if possible. Chairman Stewart questioned whether the zoning ordinance required pav- ing for parking lots, such as AC concrete. Mr. Warren stated this was true for all areas of circulation~ however, the Commission has granted approval of temporary paving in the past, with a conditional use permit, when acceptable to the Division of En- gineering. -14- The Commission again discussed the wording of condition No. 4 and the requirements thereof. Chairman Stewart suggested at least 50' of the driveway into the campground be surfaced with AC concrete and the re- mainder be a dust-free surfacing as approved by the Division of Engineer- ing. MSUC (Guyer-Gregson) Approval of conditional use permit for campground site subject to the following conditions: 1. The general store shall be operated only in conjunction with the occupied campground. Signs and advertising shall be directed only to tenants of the campground. 2. All signs for the total development shall be approved by the Di- rector of Planning. 3. The minimum width of one-way driveways shall be 15'; two-way drives shall have a minimum width of 25' 4. The setback from Edgemere Road shall be set at 5' for signs and 30' for structures. 5. The driveway shall be surfaced with AC concrete for the first 50' and then a dust-free surfacing for the remainder of the driveways, as approved by the City Engineer. 6. Landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Director of Planning for approval prior to the issuance of any building permits. 7. All applicable provisions of Sections 33.45.6 - 33.45.8 (Floodway zoning) shall be met, with special emphasis given to the following: a. Any buildings for human habitation shall be constructed one foot above the 100 year flood level. b. Any floatable material shall be confined to the building. c. Buildings to be constructed shall be able to withstand inunda- tion by water and velocities expected in the area. 8. Interior lighting for the campground shall be within i00 and 200 intensity and shall not reflect on any adjacent areas. Findings be as follows: a. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood or the community. There are presently no comparable facilities available in the South Bay area and with the great number of campers and trailers being used by vacationers for temporary living accommodations, it is necessary that such campgrounds be established to serve them. This flood plain location is ideal for such a use since most of the property will not be suitable for development until such time as the proposed flood control channel is constructed adjacent to the subject property. -15- b. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of per- sons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. It does not appear that there will be any detrimental effect on the area since the adjacent sanitarium is on ground which is con- siderably higher than the proposed facility which will be pri- marily located on the valley floor. The proposed building, which would be the main activity center, would be located well away from the residences to the north. c. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and condi- tions specified in the Code for such use. The ordinance requirements and conditions imposed will insure compliance with the Code. d. That the granting of this conditional use will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. The General Plan designates this area as Visitor Commercial and Open Space. The proposed use would comply with these designations. Request for Extension of Time - Variance 249 "E" Street - R. Wilson Director of Planning Warren explained that this variance was approved in August 1967 for a reduction in front setback for an office and apartment use. The variance expires on February 15, 1967, and the ap- plicant has requested an indefinite extension of time to complete his project. The staff recommends a period of one year. City Attorney Lindberg commented that this was the appropriate time to schedule a workshop meeting to discuss the time elements of the various applications. Presently, variances and conditional use permits expire in 6 months, and the Commission may wish to consider a longer period of time. MSUC (Rice-York) Approval of an extension of one year on the variance request. -16- Report on Changes to Outdoor Advertising Act Director of Planning Warren indicated this was a referral to the Com- mission by the Council as to the inquiry by the State as to whether or not the City was interested in adopting a resolution requiring a zoning permit for whatever signs are erected that would be governed by this Act. City Attorney Lindberg, in accordance with the staff comments, suggested the Commission recommend to the City Council the adoption of an appro- priate resolution requiring any applicants for outdoor advertising be required to have a certificate of compliance with the zoning of the City. Under the new Act, they have to go to the State for a permit. This should be required because it is the City's only control over out- door advertising, and at the present time, this new Act completely preempts the field of regulation of outdoor advertising on the freeways and highways. Mr. Lindberg added that this Act controls the signs within 660' of the right-of-way lines of the freeways throughout the State. He then briefly discussed other aspects of the Act, commenting that he would like to have further time to advise both the Commission and Council as to the terminology used in segments of the Act whether it would be acceptable to our City. The only control the City has left is the zoning one whereby the City could impose a zone which would eliminate signs in certain areas. Director Warren remarked that the real question at this time is not the enactment of any further zoning ordinances but whether or not the Commission wishes to recommend to the City Council the adoption of this resolution requiring a zoning permit. The Commission concurred that this should be done. MSUC (Adams-York) Recommend to the City Council the adoption of a reso- lution requiring a zoning permit for signs regulated by this Act which are erected within the City. "Move-In" - Chula Vista Girls Club Director of Planning Warren informed the Commission of the request for a determination by the Commission as to whether or not a building that will be moved next to the Lillian J. Rice school is architecturally compatible with the area. It would appear that the building, when re- modeled in accordance with the Building Code, would be appropriately located on this site. City Attorney Lindberg discussed the requirements for landscaping the area stating the site does have to be landscaped and maintained. This is a part of the lease agreement. -17- MSUC (Guyer-York) Recommend approval of the "move-in" subject to the requirements of any other City departments. The recommended approval is in accordance with Section 8.21 of the City Code, and is based on the findings that the building would be compatible with the surrounding area based upon the standards delineated in said section. County Welfare Building - F Street School Site Director of Planning Warren stated that they have a request by the City Administrator to discuss the location of a proposed County Welfare office on the F Street school site. In September 1963, the City ap- proved a conditional use permit for the construction of a County governmental branch center on this site. The City's approval of this was in concept only since no plans were submitted. In March 1967, the Commission extended this permit for three years which will now expire on August 9, 1970. Within the last month, Mr. T. M. Heggland has submitted to the Board of Supervisors the proposal that budgeted funds be expended for a building on this site. Mr. Warren then discussed the plans for the new welfare building recently built in E1 Cajon indicating that the one proposed for the F Street school site would be similar. The staff asked to talk to the architects of this building to get some assurance that it would be architecturally compatible with the area. The Commis- sion's action tonight would be to reaffirm their approval of the original conditional use permit since it is still effective. Mr. Warren then reviewed the three conditions imposed on the original application in- dicating that the Commission may wish to reconsider the conditions. He discussed the extension of Memorial Way and the condition that Davidson Street be made a one-way street at the time of this development. He further asked that the Commission incorporate~their recommendation to the Council the need for coordination by the County and the Commission of their plans - that final plans should be brought back to the Commis- sion for approval. The Commission briefly discussed the proposed parking. Director Warren declared that they will have 200 employees here, 70 of which will be working in the building and the rest will be working in the field. MSUC (York-Hyde) Recommend to the City Council the reaffirmation of the approval of the conditional use permit granted in September 1963 with particular emphasis placed on the need for coordination of the County's plans with the City's. It is essential that the general architectural trend already established in the area be adhered to. Also, condition No. 1 should be reconsidered as final plans for development are made. -18- Workshop Meeting Director of Planning Warren discussed possible dates for the next Com- mission workshop to review further the proposed new zoning ordinance. San Diego Zoning Member Hyde briefly discussed San Diego's contemplated consideration of changing the R-4 zoning to a lower density for La Jolla in order for them to better implement their community planning. Chairman Stewart welcomed the members of the League of Women Voters to the meeting. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Rice-Hyde) Meeting be adjourned to the meeting of January 15, 1968, at 7 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~uennle M. Fulasz Secretary