The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Comm min 1967/11/06 OI{I;INAL MINU?~S O~ A RE(;ULAR PI,~\!N~NG COM~MISSION ~EETING OF THE CT[TY O1~' CHULA VISTA, C~IFO~IA November 6, 1967 ,-egul~r meeting of tile ,....~ P3. annLng Conm~ission ~as held on tze date a~ 7 p.m. in th~ Council Cha~er, Civic Cgnter, 276 G~ ~va ~e, Chula V[st.n. Me~grspz~.~en~.-~ were~ Stewart~ York, Hyde~ ~ ~ D~rectc . of Gre~:;on~ K-c-, ~nd Adams, ~n~)sent:~ None~ Also present: '~ p3. a~.:~Ln9 ,'~a~r~r ¢ A:socia~;a P~.alll:el7 Malngan~lli, Junior Planner Mas ¢ City Att.rnt~ Lindberq, ,~nd A;3sistant City Fngineer ~esle~ . -z~,':..u~ce request f~r F. ok~,rt C. ~iggins we~ too condensed a:~d should t ..... validity of the r~qtlest as oppos }d to .~-(~:~,>::f. ng, The fecrete.ry v,'as~ asked to refer to tke tape and detai.~ t~.r of Pla:~nin~ .-'a~ren no';cd that a detailed zeport o~ th~ m d~.a;, of tim~ theft the minutes of the last .yes 5 great. "~' ~ taken by ~:.~e ~;~);{~tit~lte S~:~creta~jas it is~, ~t takes a i'u!~. o~:epar~:~ the minut~s~ Cit,,. i%ttorney Lindberg ~clared t?.?~t 9ny d~-, n,~s:~.on ~5!;d3sequ~nt "ho tLe clos<ng of the p-~lic hearing is ~:t to the hearin<[; the co~ents marie by the {~oz.~dssion is ~ot con- s3. d~:<ed vii:al tc, the motion -- ~.n ~ost cases~ t%~ remark~ ~.ce th Ad~m:J asked for correct?~:n on two poiz]ts: on page lit - un]er .... ~,.]._~g~ (b) the amount of ~ign area should oe 32 ~.nstec~d of .. s~or=;, classification ~2, the word sh~I.~ b ~ ...... ...zg inste~d of 'building', O .~.o ..... 1967 be a '~D:t>-3v~ %'"_,~,_~ ......... ..... -Rzc' ~ ,% ~t[n%.ttes of the meeting of ~.~ ~- 23, and Center Gtrf.e~i - ~3 to C-2-.D -. Greate~ Sout~ ,'es ~e~ :~.::~r:,:or of Planning ~arren ~r~sented the plot ~[~an noting %be ;]~;~[~,L' and Ddja;.:ent land use~ ~e noted that t~l~; matter we~ con~;~nt~ed eh=.~, e mcetinr' of Septembe:~ ~, ~t957~ at the re<~,es'5, of tbc~ app?..cant., ~,~,z~s relatiwe ~:o the n~ .d :~cr zonln~ hav,~ Leen submLtted t~ .... ;.~3.~lce this initial reqme~Jt~ the ...~.~.n~; ') has ~pp:-;ov~d ~ cond:tti~nal use. . pe~nit [or a31 but the ~o:~:' ,.hi., lequest based, oD several [:actors: the neb zoning ordinance ~culd cs. eat. e a n=-w C-O zone ,,*hich would be a more appropriate zone for this pr,~perty~ since it is a recognized fact that moxe office space should be ~a(~*~ avai!~le near the Civic Center,~ Th~s zone ?;ould provide for .Dfff~ce, some light commercial, or high dersity residen~:ia~ ~Ise whic:~ .~c~uld be compatible ~ith th~ Docton-~' Paxk across the st..e ..... ~'h, C~2. zone, as requeste(( by the applicant, is tn, heaviest co~m~e;?cial zDnm and would permit uses that wo'uld ~ot be compatible with the area. Tn~ Oeing the timo and p!ac~ sa advertised, the p~lic hearing re- opened. ~. George ~en, r:~.~-~sentin3' Greater Southwestern Co.~oration, stated that they first re:luested C-2 zoning for the entire property but ~ave =~rc_. leased a portion of th~ propertf for a convalescent facilit~ Th, y ~o%~ ask that the remaJ.nfler o~ 'th~ property be rezoned C-.2. Th,~:~ being no further co~e:xt~ eithar for or against, the i%earin~ was dec~ared closed. Me~;~r Ad~s stated he fully agl?eed wig:ii the recom;aendations of t~e st,.fi5 - that the C.-O zone~ w~en available, would b~ the most app~Dpria~e fo~' this property. Men,er York declared he was ~s%aining since he is involved with p:~op- erA.y within the 300'; but that in the ~sence of ~y plans for th~s prc~perty, he is opposed to tae C-_ zone. Ci~J; ~an Stewart f~lt it would be an unwarrented intrusion into aa ar~;~~ 9f ~e develoom~nt s lch a~ that across the street (Doctors Park.) ~(' {,Adam~-t~yde~ R~qu~st be ~nJ.ed based on the following: Commission has rssisted every effort to mak~ ~'ourth Avenue a co~erci~l st~Teet. The prevalence of some o~ the ,..~ty o best aparamant buil~%n s Da the ~]treet have definite?, ~:he cavelopm.en'~, trend for for Fourth Avenue which shou2.~, b~ 2ontinued. 2. ~;~}ile E-3, zone i~ -o'u~te- ~D~oQriate. .... for this prope;:ty,., it. is recog [;lze6 t~at pot~n~.~al off;c~ sp~ce should be made avakl6~b~ ne?a~ tb~ 2~i~;ic C~nter a0.~ upon tae .~doption of a new Zoning Ordinsnce~ the [2-0 zon~ may b~ ,~?plic~le to the s%~ject property,, Thi~ zo;~ ~,rould~ p~'ovide fo~' office~ som~ !iuht co~erc~a,.,, o~: l~igh d~en.?i~y ~sidential us~ which wo~ld~e .... c3mpat~,le'~ with Doo~%ors' Park ~e s'~reet. A portf~on of th~ abuttinF e~.~s~erly p~operty, s;hile zonked C-l~ is ,~ccording to preliminary pi~ns revie~.~od by the sta~f~ being co,a- sid. ered for multiple-f~ily development. -3- 4~. The City has appro×imate).y 550 acres of commercial zoned land in the City° Of this acreage, about 288 acres are actually being used commercially while appro~'~.imately 128 acres ar(~ vacant and 134 ac~es are otherwise ~lsed (primarily residential.)o It would appear from these statistics that the City is in no dire need for .~r, ore commercial uoning~ especially in this area where there is perhaps an ov~r~undance. No facts were presented to the contrary. T~e motion carried by the follo%~ing vote, to-wit: ~Y~S: ?4embers Adan~, Hyde,. G%~yer, Gregson, Stewart and Rice NOES: None ~3STAIN: Member York A~S ',~;N T .~ None PUSLIC HEARING ~- REZONING - 838 Third Avenue and 315-J41 "L" Straet ---R--~-~'--=Jn--d C.'-i to C-2 and reductio--n-~~~I~ ~~-~-~6 5~ -Hatz, Off~, Rose, O;~rt, ~3~s and~3~ale Th~ application was 'cead in which a request was made to rezone fnTom R-] and C-I to C-2 that property on 838 Third Avenue e~:tendin9 west to the te~ini of Sierra Way and San Mi~el and also includes L ~tz~eet, 327 L, 331 L, ~d ~e vacant lot west of 341 L Street (afU~roxi~ately 10 ack, es). The applicants also request pe~ission reCuc:e the front setback area from 25' to 5'. Director of Pla~ing %;arren s~itted the plot plan noting the tinned, zoning, and adjacent land use. He co~ented theft the area in ~u~stion is proposed ~o be purchased by the K-Mart Corporation, discount store is a p(~L~tted use in a C-1 zone., Rega~dless c~f J~he pl~u~ s~mitted at this time, the Co~mission would have no gu~3,rantee that the applicant would actually do this; therefore, ~.t is neces~a~ that the Con~ssion evaluate requested rezoning on its own merit:~. Mr~ Warren discussed the st~o streets existing in ~e s~)division to th( ~,,~est .... San ~,~gue3~, Sierra Way and Palomar. 'I'he residents would pr~ fer that these streets reaain closed and not b~ an access way for a commercial dev~lopn]ent~ There is no reason wl~y a re~identia! ve]c?~ent on this pr,Dposed l~nd cannot occur. ~,~r. Warren the~ reek t.=:~ on the applic~ts statement that there3 is no C-2 area in C~,~]~ large enoug]~ to acco~odate this size development. The Ci.t~, ~o'~, o~er-zoned co~amercialiy - approxim~tely 550 acres of land is now zo~ ec. commercial a~%d slightly more than 50% of it is used co~..ercially an~ ~ear!y 25% is ~vacant. There has been a con~tant demand tc tn( cc~aercial area on H Street between Fift~ Avenue and Third Avenue. '~h{~ ~taf~ feels that if the need can be found an,i it c~% be apprc?~:i- at~ I ~ acco~>gd~ted~ then redavelopment of that area should be -4- The construction of~a major store such as K~Mart in th~ requested lo- cation would create a nucleous for another commercial shopping center and would weaken the business districts furt3aer north and to the sonth. Director Warren added that if private enterprise wishes to prevent ultima%,e federally-assisted urban renewal, then redevelopment by private interests must take place; because, as the City grows, it is impossible to consider that the only available land in centra~ area is ~aat which is vacant. Di::ector Warren further added ~3~at the General Plan designates t~?is ar~,a as residential. He stated that if ~he Co,remission wishes to grant th~'.~ request, the st~ff would ask that the "D" zone be attached and theft the staff be diracted to delineate guidelines for ~e develcpment~ also, that no se~ack reductions be grated until thei2~ plans re~'eal ~he need for such~ Th~.~. being the ~lme and place as advertised, the p~lic hearing ~as declared open. Mrs. Phyllis Learned, realtcr, 462 Third Avenue~ stated she is rapre- senting the property owners w~ have given ~ option to K-b~art. She reviewed the reasons for the request as stated in the applicatio~ (1~ ~ey are now surrounded on two sides with co~ercial zoning~ (2) th~y propose to erect a wall aroun6 the property which would dead-end th~ streets of the re:~dentlal area to the west; (3) L Street wo[~ld~ be the main link to the development wi~ accesses off Third Avent~; (4~ this mrea is near the c~nter of town; (5) price of thi~.~ vacant ~,.s too expensive to deuelo~) as resident;al; (6) this ~ype ve~opment would be quieter than a a~ultiple-f~ily deve~opm%nt.~ the3~e wi~_l be plenty of parking, (~) the p~oposed d~velopmen~ encompass 10 acres - ~ere is no other parcel in the City ~ar~e ~noug~ to ~c~o~d~te this; (9} presently teo much traffic on Thi~ and L for desir~le f~ily living~ (I0) C--1 is only 290~ in depth; (11~ th}s de- ~e2~opnent will add to the tBxe.%~ and revenue for ~J~e Cindy,. ~ L~rned a(3~ed that ~:he Planner (~r. Warren) has stated that this wou~.d t~e away sales from the other shopping cen~ers ~n %i~e Sh~ informed the Commission that ~h~s K-Mart Corporati~n is pl,~nn~ng tc construc~ 6 new ~to~es in San Diego Ccunty~ an6 sto]~e is net permitted to qc in this area, it will situate il gener~l area - whether National City or County, and even~ualty aw~%y fro~ other businesses. Mrs{. Learned ~ur~er adde~ ~h~.t she to, ok a '~l~%phone poll of t~e res~den~ living next to the S~ars st~)~e ~nd found all of these people ve~ happy living ~ext to ~e.~opmen(~ and %hey do not f~el ~ha~ their property is ~ny ~e~]s fo~- doing Menber Yc~rk asked. ~s. Leaz~ned ~f their plans propose any ~,~s~ ra~uirin~ C-2 instead of C-!. ~s. L~'arned~ stated that ~:hev will be audio parts in the store and wil'. ala~c have a norticu!tural n~]rse~ Sh~ added that t~ey are not concerne~ with '~e type oz zoni~n.~ as ~.ong ~s t~ey are ~le to con~truct this -5- ~ha~r~an Stewart questioned whether there will be a service station ccnnect~-d with this business° ~4r.~ L~ A. Stewart, Sales Manager, Fred B. Mitchell Company, represent- ing ~J':e buyer, read a pre~r~d letter whereby he stated, that they have been authorized to locate 10-acre sites for K-Mart stores in the San Diego area~ Presently, there is a store und~er construction in Escon- dido, a site in Oceanside an~ a site in San Diego, with two additional ~ites in San Diego being negc~iatedo They have searched for several ~]on~s for a site in Chu!a V~sta and have come up with this one. They ask appro~.~ai of same. Mr. Stewart then read a letter f~om Morris F. Landon~ M. H. Golden C_n~truct~'~on Company, confirn~ng the fact that they have been assigned by Ccogan & Walters for the construction of the K-Mart store in Chula Vis~.~,. ~b.% Stewart remarked that he was very much surprised to learn of :-be protests from the res~dentia! property owners in the area. ~e als] conducted a poll of the residents near the S~.ars shopping center ~- ~1 we.re satisfied with living next to this development except one res[~..ant ~ho did not favor lJvinq next to a shopping center. That man had sold his home ~nd informed Mr. Stewart that he got a very good pric~ for it and sol~ it quickly - the reason, he felt, was that was ~.sxt ~.'-o the shopping cen~ero Mr~ Stewart further added that they did consider the ~lte on Fif~ and H Street, but the asking price was too high. Mr. T.homas Ackerman, Attorney for the developers~ commented on t~e ex- rent,ad effort to find a suitable site for this store in Chula Vista; thef encountered many problems with zoning, etc~ The store itself will .=ncompass 100,000 squar~ feet of floor area and a vast amou~.t of par~ing space with needed access must be available. If they had access onl? off Third Avenue, the company would not consider this site. K)?e]~.'e's ~ant to locate in Ckula Vista; they are aware of the prcbtems her~ and are more than willing to work these out with the Plannir, g staff. As to the cul-de-sacs, tlaey will re~ain so and these s~r~ets will not ~ open for access ~o the store. 5t '~;~s noted that the staff received a pe~l ~lon of protest siqne~ by 52 p~'oper%y owners and one r~;questing approval signed by 25 property O%'111 ~rs. ~3: Roy Johnson, 351 Palomar Drive, representing the property owrers prot~e~sting ~he request repudiated the stateK~ents made by the app~ic~t. Dts on t~eir application as follows: (1) there are presently 10 existing com~c:~rcial!y zoned sites of L0 acres, more or less~ in the City; the 3'~..~quested land use for ti[is property was recognized as impractical b'_~, tl'~e planning consultants, the staff, the Planning Commission e:nd City Cou:~cil; (3) the resid~.~ntial homes in the area will. suffar a very definite econo~ulc hardship if this development is permitte(~ on this ps. rc.-~l; (4) the .price o.'[ t~.~is ~and, according to the county asses- s.9.r, base,~ upon resale value is $ 500~per acre on the vacant R-I land~ r~ ..... mea%s the market value would be $10,000 per acre. General Plan ::~flects more residential de~,elopment in this area and this facet was chec],~d out with various school districts before the adoption of 'the -6- Plan; (5) as to "L" and Third being too heavily traveled to make them desirable for living - there are many miles of major streets within the City limits with residential %utits fronting upon tkem - Fourth Aven%~e is a good example; (6} national standards reflect a 10 acre development such as this proposed one would require 40,000 people for a trance area, adequate shopping facilities exist in the City; (7) we would question the fact that people would feel t~is are. a too noisy to live in - with the addition of a police facility across Third Avenue) the present police facility :.s surrounded by residential development with no complaints; (8) the ::cuing a~d depth of this commercial zoning across the street is not deeper than 290' except for the Bradshaw Mar- ket .~;ite and the R.~I houses back up to the con~ercial area; (9) they state the stub strsets would remain dead end but whether they re~,t~tin ~hat way ~r not depends upon t'_he proposed use of the land. ~ would ~.ot effectively screen the re~,idential area from a large cial structure located 40' f;.-om the residential areas; (10) the mercial developments in t/'ze immediate area established since the ,idop- tion of ~e General Plan haw.· been marginal developments and cer~ {inly not enough to establish any '~:rend in ~he area; (11) si?ce 1961, City }3as added 114 acres of coz.~mercial!y zoned /.and - in that %he amount of vacant ooT~merc~'~al property has remained the sa~e. ~esson for this is that cheaper residential land is being rezoned rather than '~he development of existing zoned land.; (12) rezcning from R--1 to C~l was recently denied for the property on the west side Thir~ between J and K - f. his area is basically the sams zoning pastern and ~.'~eveiopment ~,~1, ~.~%%1 wili{:;l e~lists in the are=~ being consi~ere, d to- nigh~; (i3) propose~ ~evelop~l~nt plans reflect no need for a 5' s~t back aion~ L Street; (14) the request along L Street would includ.'~ an area 150' wide by 100' in del;th which would have inadequate depth for ~uly commercial development and be a key factor in encouraging st3~ip zoning in the City; (]5) tJ~e property is zoned for sin~le-faI~ily isa - it c~n be developed in this ~anner - and it is the highest aRd be:~t use for t?iis neighborhood. ~{r. Johnson asked the people in the a~- dience wli3 ara protesting th~.· request to stand. It ,~zas noted that ap,~roximately 50 residents Mr. ~illiam Nici%ols, 353 Palo~ar Drive, staaed he appe~red before the Commission on September 3, 19~,~4~, for a variance request hearing was ~ssured at that t~me tha~: the area would remain R-!o l{e adde~, ~1~ t~he property owners wou31d be loosing something they now ~,ave if the 3:equest were approved; (i.)? there is an ~-xisting General Plan~ and the ::cuing delineated on this P3an should be adhered to. He adde~ that his ~3roperty is immediately ;ldjacent to this site - his three children wJ~.]l be sleeping wi~2~.in 45' of the store itself, and iris until I0 p.m. evety night co~l!d prove to be a detriment. Ther~ bei~,.j no further cc~,ent~ eithe~ for or against, the h~arin,~ was de¢l~xed closed. -7- Director of Planning Warren clarified his previous statements concern- ing the strengthening or weakening of commercial areas in that the staff did not intend to convey that they would not recommend a K~Mart store in the City~ on the contrary, they do recommend this store or any other business of this size provided they can be properly located. His point was that a develop~ent such as this should be located in such a manner that it would strengthen the existing com~ercial areas ~.~ the City~ Member Guyer declared that C--2 zoning could bring in uses that would not be com?.-.~.ible with the area. Member York questioned whether C-t zoning would permit this project~ Director Warren noted, that the proposed nursery' could be permitted with a conditional use pex.~mit in ;~ C-1 zone. As far as the sale of bat- reties, t~.res,, and auto accessories~ this wuuld depend on how far this would go; a service station ~'.s subject to a conditional use pernd, t and a public garage is a C-2 use. ~4ember York noted that the al~plicants propose to put the garden shop within th~ building. Mr. Wa3?ren indicated that +.his ccuid be permitted in the C-1 zone. Mr. York asked the applicants if they would be willing to accept C-1 zoni~g in~tead of C-2. Mr. Htewart, representing the applicant, stated that he wms not too familiar with the zonin~ ordinance but feels C.-1 would be acceptable° They h~ve no plans fo.~:' any outside operations with the exception of some outsid~, sales from time to time, which ail larg~ stores conduct~ Me~ber York felt he wc, uld be quite reluctan~ to allo~ C-2 zoning in this area. ~:. ~oy Thompson deci~ared theft C-1 would ch~nge very little of tt,.ei].- objections - the basic problems would not be eliminated~ Mr. Stewart remarked that if there is objection to their tire store in ~'.~ei~3 present proposed iocat~lon~, they would, be wi~!ing to relocate it and ~lace it on t~e north si~e of the build, f:ng adjacen~ to the exisaing C~2 ~oning.~ The Con~m~,ssion discussed imposing the "D'~ zone° City Attorney Lindb(~.rg co~m¢:nted +~]at it would neces.~itate establishing the type of ch&~r~cter they are asking to preserve° Tills should be related to the stan~flards .'~xisting in the area~ Mr. W~rren com~ented further on this, add. ing that ther~ is a market and bank a~.~ros!s the stree~a, and a proposed police buil(~ing - it might be difficul~ to say the~'?e is an aste]~lishe~ ~harac- te;~ bere~ it may not be appropriate to apply the "D" zone here, ]~e ~dde~] that they do have site plan review fo!.~ commercia.] developments ~hat woul~ provide for a block wall and landscaping. ~4en~er Hyde felt there was no justification shown for such an exten- sive development in this area; no one has illustrated that the area is presently improperly zoned. Member York discussed the C-1 zoning as opposed to the C-2. He indi- cated that it was true, there is an excess of commercial zoning in the City, but a large portion of this zoning is not conveniently placed and is nc.t about to be developed as com~lercial. Here there is existing C-1 and C-2 zoning~ and the Co~m~ission now has the opportunity to ex- pand the size of this location for commercial zoning to get a very de- sirable planned development - a major retail area and this would tend to encourage redevelopment of some of the older M-1 and coa~ercial areas in the vicinity. The parcels in the City already zoned cor~aer- cial of ~dequate size and location are non-existent. Mr. York added that this ~evelopment would add considerably to the tax base - more so than would R-1 zoning - especially the sales tax. This is a develop- meat that the City of Chuia Vista should have; the owners have planned to locate six of these stores in the County and one sheuld be here in the South Bay area. Me,%ber Adams declared he was not in favor of this rezoning - he felt 290' depth of commercial zoning along Third Avenue is sufficient to serve the needs of the area. There is no way to hold the app~.icants to the development they propose. In the General Plan report, the con- su[~tants pointed out that Chula Vista had three principal shopping areas~ Third Avenue, Third ~nd ~'C", and Broadway a/%d ~7t".. T]~.ey stated that these areas, with normal e~pansion, wculd be adequate to take ca::e of the City. Now the City has Third and Palomar, and if this goes th::ough, we will have a fifth shopping area. These areas do not pro- du~;e any new business - they just take away from other shopping areas. Me~%ber Gregson commented that in view of the many people who c~e to pretest, it seems that thei~ feelings should be consid~redo Me]~ber Rice stated he was a~jainst the C-2 zoning and the red%~ction of se'~backs to 5' on L Street. As to the type of business - they cannot be,~in to consider it as the~ have no assurance as to what it will be~ Mr. Rice declared he would like to see K-Mart come into Chula Vista, bu~ 'this is not the locatior fo;-~ it. Props~rty for suc~. a use is avail... ab te - whether at the price they wish to pay or not. If this goes on, the City will be over-satur$.ted with. commelcial zoning. Mr~ Rice ad.~d that the Commission sfould not dwell on the economic aspect of thts request, but rather it is the.',.r duty to take care of the l<~nd use in the Ckty and adopt the l~nd available to the best planning ir}retest. Mr. Rice further added that a great detail of time was spent drawing{ up the General Plan -- this Plan states t/~at Third .~!~ve~Tue sho~lld go to residential use and to conc~ntr~te commercial use wher~ trends culcrently established. -9- Member York contended that there is a strip of commercial land in this area at the present time - the City would get a much better de- velopment for this area by expanding C-1 (not C-2). He is opposed to changing the setbacks until their plans call for such. Member York reiterated that he ~,s in favor of expanding this area to t~e care of this requested development - that it was a normal procedure for the Commission to follow. ~gC (Guyer-Gregson) Request be denied based on the following findings: 1. The General Plan places ~,~his Third Avenue frontage in a residen-- c~.al classification. The goal in the Plan is to concentrate com- ~mercial centers where trends are clearly established° This should ]%)e do~e by encouraging high density residential use ~n areas pre- sently vacant and improperly zoned for commercial u~se. 2. The City is now commerci;~lly over-zoned even thougk~. some of zoning may be J. mproperly located. Chula Vista presently h,~s 8% of tts land bearing commercial classifications which is con~d,erab.~y higher than the recognized standards for most cities - the G~neral Plan designates only 2.9% for commercial uses. Of the City',~-~ approximately 550 acres of commercially zoned land: slightly more than 50% of it is used commercially and nearly 25% is vacant, 3. ~?he value of the R-1 !an,~ involved is no greater than that re- cently developed with single-family homes in other areas of tb, e City. Economics alone c,~nnot dictate proper land ~%se. ~,, ~he subdivision to the west of subject property was designed with the intention of extending the streets through to the present zoning on the Third Aven'~e frontage. If commercial use were to occupy the vacant R-1 property, the subdivision should h~ve been designed with rear yards abutting the con%mercial u~e. 5. 5~here has been a constant drive to expand the coR~nercial area on "H" Street between Fifth Avenue and Third Avenue. If then~,':,~, exists and expansion can be appropriately acco~:od~ted, then re- development of t~at area should be enco.aragedo 7fhe commercial trend in the area of this requ~st is negligible and should be confined to that area presently con~.~ercially zoned~ The construction of a major ,.store in this area such as "K-Mart" create a nucleous for a new commercial center which %~ould we~ken the business district fusther north. ~ a Ci,*-y grows~ it beco~aes impossible 'to co~%sider that the only '~vailable" land in the c_~ntral area is that which is vacant. If private enterprise ~lshes to prevent ultimate federal, ly-assi~ted ~arban renewal~ then redevelopment by private inter~,~sts must take ]place. -10-. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AY~$: Members Guyer, Gregson, Hyde, Stewart, Rice and Adams NO~S: Member York ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING - Attachment of "D" zone to Chula Vista Shopping Center and Sears S~ore Director of Planning Warren stated this matter was Com~Nsion-initiated at ~e recommendation of the staff. He submitted a plot plan noting the t. ocation of the shopping center, listing the adjacent zonings and l~d use. It has come to the attention of the Commiss~on and staff that as new enterprises have been developed in this shopping center, th(~y have not always been in complete harmony with the architecture theft exists. This is a very attractive shopping center and a credit to the community; therefore, it would be desirable to pi.ace some form of control that would assure that the architecture and site plan of the future development would be compatible with that character already es- t~,lished. This "D" zone would give the Commission the opportunity to review the planned architecture, site plan, and the proposed signs. There is a 50 square foot limitation of sign area in this zone; however~ it is quite logical to assume that in a development of this sort a variance would be considered for an increase in this sign area° Pre- sently, the only site available for development in 'this center is the southeast corner of ~roadway and "H" Street. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was op~ned. Mr. Jerome Lipp~ 600 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, associated with Br(~adway Stores, con~aented ~n ~e fine relationship they have enjoyed wi~ Chula Vista. He said ~hat they have done their ])art an~ more to bring into the co--unity a fine quality and well-conceived store. He discussed the obstacles that could occur with the imposition of the "D" zone - he felt ~le time involved in checking the plans~ asking for Conmission approval, etc., would tend to sway some of the pro:~pects to look for other locations to establish their businesses. Mr. Lip9 re~ marked that he was delighted that the Commission is t~¢ing steps to e~ance the commercial developments in this community~ but felt they sh(~utd think more broadly and t~ke in other areas, and not centralize thLs zone on this one area. He declared that ~ey would like to assist the Commission in developin~ a set of standards that would have some c!~ar, understandable language that is measurable and consistent with wh~%t they are doing elsewhere in different communities~ ~d is enfcrce- ab2he. Mr. Lipp added that rather than create a zone - "D" zone - that is not clearly written and not understandable by the parties~ that the Co~ission put down certain standards in writing so that all parties belong bound by them would know what is involved. Chairman Stewart explained that this shopping center was not de- liberately pinpointed for this zone - none of ~T.e Commission had any- thing in mind except the shopping center's best interest. '2his zone will, in all probability, ultimately be put on all commercial areas of the City. Dir=_ctor Warren commented that he discussed this situation with Mr. Lip? earlier in the day and he agrees that the "D" zone, in order to be a completely valuable zone, needs more standards of som~ sort; how- ever, it is difficult to delineate de'tailed standards in an ordinance. If tbs ordinance is to preserve or encourage a certain character ~- they sho'~id be able to draw from that character some guidelines to be used for future developments. If this is the desire of the Co~m~'%ssion and the applicant, this could be considered before action is taken on this matter. Mr. Warren noted the recently approved guidelines the sio~ set up for property in Bonita. Chairman Stewart reiterated %~at there is no intention on the pa~t of the Commission to restrict land use. Mr. Lipp contended that the '~D" zone language is somewhat vague. He again volunteered to work with the staff and Commission to achieve soma of these standards. These would be clearly written and unde~3stood by ~.11 and would be submitted to the Commission for approval, Me.m~er York asked if t?nis could be ready for the next ~eeting. Lip;, felt he could get this ready. MSU~ (Rice-Gregson) Matter be continued to the meeting of Noveml)e:' 20, 1967~ in order to take advantage of the offer of Mr. Lipp to furnl.sh the ~Jlanning staff with copies of criteria and standards d. evelopedi by the Broadway Stores to achieve the degree of site development cha.?ac~ teri:.~d by their shopping centers. PUBt2C HE.~LRING - VARIANCE (Cont'd) - Request for waive~: of scree~ Director of PYanning Warren ~;ubmitted a plot plan no~ing the .... of ~'3,a reques=. He stated this ~tter was continued from ~e of )ctobe:f 2, 1967~ to allow t~e staff time to study the matter furtker ~d the City Attorney time to clarify any legal problems with th~ ease- menhs to the rear of the property. ~ke applicant is proposing tc erect a 135~ long slide on this site and is requesting a w~lver of the higa ~aason~ wall which u~ust be constructed separating an amusement fa- cility use from a residential area., and also the landscaping require- ments. The applicants state this will be a temporary use. At October 2 meeting, the Com~ss~on heard opposition from the ad3ac~-nt resid~mnts. In respect to ~e matter of the 5~ ease~nt, the property -- is mvail~)le for use provideC, no permanent structures would be put on it. -12- At the meeting of October 23, the Commission reco~nended to the City Council that they adopt an emergency ordinance which would control all amusement enterprises by a conditional use permit. The Council took action on this request at their meeting of October 31, approving this emergency ordinance. This ordinance is effective for 90 days and it has the control over the location of these amusement centers. The staff has contacted the applicants by letter informing them of this new ordinance ~%d asked them to make their intention known to us about this conditional use permit~ no reply has been recei%~d. Mr. Warren noted that the applicants were not present at the meeting. Chairman Stewart suggested a continuance of this hearing to the m~et- lng of November 20. Mr. Warren indicated that th.~ applicants would s=ill have to appl~ for a conditional use pem~it. The Con~nission discussed denying the variance. Director Warren sug- gested they file the request without action. City Attorney Lin~)~rg st~.ted that if the Cormnissioa chose to deny the request~ it ~houl~ be on the basis that t~e variance, as requested, could not be grantel for this particular use in question because the use cannot be allowed with~ ou~ a conditional use permit. ~UC (York-Hyde) Denial of ~%e variance request based on the following: 1. The varianoe~ as request:~d~ cannot be granted for this pa=titular use since, by ordinance, it cannot be allowed without a cendi- tional use permit. 2. You gave no response to a staff letter dated Nove.~)er 2, 1967, requesting whether or not you desired to proceed wLth your p~ject~ PU~.LIC HEAPING- VARIANCE (C~nt~d) - 374 Jason Place - Reduction in rear ~{ard s.=~tback ~'~ - G. & Do Director of Plannin~ Warren ~ubmitted a plot plan noting the lock, rich of the request. He stated t%is matter was continued from the previous me~ting ~;n order to re-advertise ~he h.~aring due to the fact that the original notice was incomplete ;in t/~at it w~s not noted that ~he point of the proposed bui!di.~g will be 10' ~" from the recorded pre.perry line. A suggestion wai%~ made at the last meetLng to this addition on the other side of his hume; this would not be since t/%e addition would not relate to the floor plan. Me~.,er Gregson a~ked how man~ in this particular area ha%~ been granted a v~iance. Mr. Warren stated three out of the 7 homes. This being the time and plac-~ as advertised~ the hearing was re--opened° -13- Hr. George Andersen, the applicant, acknowledged that he was present and indicated that he related his reasons for the justification of the request in his application. Mro Aurelio Barajas, 375 "J# Street, stated his home is the only one directly affected by this request - his bedrooms would be closest to the applicant's proposed f~/nily room, a~d this, he felt, was definitely not compatible. Mro Barajas remarked that the applicant has ample room to i~uild on the other side of his room. Member Rice pointed out that by building it on the other side, it would be equally close to his hon~. Member Gregson asked about the wall in the rear of the property. Hr. ~arajas said he has a 4~ wall going up to 4½~ - on top of this he has pan,is m~zing the wall 6' high. He added that with this addition com- ing so close to his own residence, it would reduce the sale 9rice of his h~me, should he desire to sell. Dir~.ctor Warren noted that most of that area under consideration for the addition is a raised patio area now~ if two walls were left open~ '~'~i~ patio could legally be covered. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearin~ was declared closed. The Commission discussed the possibility of the applicant building; on '~he other side of his home° Member Rice stated that he can sympa"'~hize wita this property owner (Mr.~ Barajas) since the addition will be close to ~is back yard; however, if the applicant did build to the west of his dwelling, it would not help this property owner to the south~ and it ~ould not give the applicant the floor plan he desires. Member Adams commented that ~-_he Commission could cite the shape o~ the lot as the exceptional ciro~,%stances. MSUC (Gre~,~son-Rice] Variance request be approved. Findings be as follows: a. That the strict applicat:~.on of the zoning reg~alations or requ~.re- ments would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hard~hips fnc~.nsist~nt with the general purpose and intent of the regulatio~+~s., The only area on this lot which could be built on and still meet all of the City's setback requirements would be impractical b~.,,cause of the existing floor plan. The area selected for cons'~-ructi3n of the family roo~ is located adjacent to ~/~e kitchen and will p,'e-- serve an area on the west: s~.de of the house for additional pa:king. 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 lot is irregular in shape and has existing drainage easements on the rear and west side property line. The curve of the front setback line and the angle of the rear property line combine to make a relatively shallow lot. c. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to ~he public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located. 5~he rear lot line is more than 105' long and the setback Yarianoe would apply to only a portion of this distance. Rear yard setback variances have previousl~ been granted to 577 a~d ~0 Jason ~lace~ d. That the granting of a v~riance will not be contrary to the objec- tives of ~%e General Plan. The Gener~l Plan is not affected. PUBLIC HEARING- VARI~NCE (Cont'd) -.Request fo, r,_increased__d_e_nsitI_?~f develop~en~in R-3-B-2-D zone - ~Nort~?,ast cornez of Dire~cto~ of Plannin~ Warren $,~tted a plot plan noting '~e location of t3~e pxoposed request. He stated this matter was continued from ~e October ].6, 1967 meeting in order to gi-~ the staff ti~ae to study fur- ~h~r the appropriaten~ss of gr~ting a variance for this proposal ~ and to study the future $~atus of Third Avenue from "C" Street, Th~: street was dedicated by the owners of the trailer park ar:d it was as~u~ed that so, day the street would be widened, taki:~g pro~rty from th~ ~ast side. There is no apparent need for a full-width street; ho%;~ver, so,ne form of access should be provided for the ~ltimate de~ vef~opment of land: (1) Jt could be developed as a poss[b!e expansien of ~Jle t~ailer park; (2) ~e site could be developed and rezoned as pa:~t of ~e industrial properties as the Valley floor develop~:~ (3) the site could be developed rasidentially %,~ith access from Th~,~.?d Avenue, ~. Warren e~lained ~at if this segment cf Third R~venue is to vel.op as a p~lic street, a 36~ travelway ~ill have to be provided a ~1~ ri~kt-of-way, The staff b~lieve~ ~t no ne%? ~dication q~f, red ~'~d, ~at the existin~ 30~ wide dedication ~hculd be retai~ed,. ~c, 12' traffic lan~S with ~ sidewalk on ome side only could be v~ftoped wig%in ~is 30' rigDt-of-way and serve this araa. Yh~ mtaff did not reco~d approval of this request b~cause %he~ could find no exceptional circumstances need~ to grant the variance. The applic~t is requ. esting one ~it per 1500 square feet of land ar~:a - there is no such catego~ in the zoning ordinance; howaver~ in tl'~e new proposed zoning ordin~ce, ~her(~ may be a p~vision for this density. -15- Mr. Warren then commented on the eucalyptus trees on the lot - most of which could be saved and this would definitely be an asset to the development. If the Commission approves this request, the staff would ask that a condition be imposed stating that the trees be re- tained, and that site plan approval be given to the staff. Dir,~ctor Warren then noted that two letters had been received from Rob.~rt C. Higgins, the applicant, indicating his intention to save the tre.~s on the premises and his willingness to participate in the future str~.~et improvements in the event the City decides to improve this str.~.et. ~hi~ being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was re- ope aed. ~r. Robert C. Higgins, 552?. Del Cerro Boulevard, San Diego, the appli- cana, stated he woul~ redesign his development, if necessary, to ::ave eve~'y tree on the property; he will also get a tree surgeon to ex~umine them. Mr. Higgins explained his proposed development and landscaping plaas. He declared this was the best use for the land, and he will con~truct deluxe three bedroom, two bath units. By oLtaining this varLance, they will be able to build ].5 a~lditional %u~its over and abo~e the present zoning. He added t~at he will be investing $600,000 in ~lis project. Member Rice questioned whether the applicant would still be able mai.~tain 80' between the buildings and still retain the trees. Hig]ins felt he could because they will have underground ~arking on 'the west and north sides. Director Warren noted on the pl.ot plan, the existing '%~rees and the paved area and felt ~at the applica]~t oou2.d not maintain the trees with the present plan. Mr. Higgins stated he would go to 70' between the bui!dings. He ~:dded that if they had requested rezoning of the property, they o¢.%~ld pos-- sibly put in 90 ~nits but this t/~ey felt would be too conge~ted~ Mrs. ~.;en Conover, 5266 Mt. Olvier Street, San Diego, real estate age~:t~ stated she has shown this property to several different de-- vel~)pers but, because of the sewerage problem in the rear, %~%ey w~,nt to consider it. The on.7.y other plan for this property would, be one bedroom apartments or bachelor apartments. Mrs. Ccnover Mr~ Higgins has the best use for the property. Mr. ~obert Lynn~ La Mesa, associated with Mr. Higgins, stated the~ wc~,.~d have no objection to ~%y planting regulations enforcing the' mai~=enance of ti:ese trees on the site; ~ey are not asking for the maximu~ zoning - instead of asking for 1000 square feet of 3~and per unit, they are asking for 1500 square feet. -16- Mr. Alfred Welker, 168 North Del Mar, said he hoped the street could be maintained, at least the 30' that is there now since it would be essential for access to the rear of his property. Mr. Rudolph, 299 Sea Vale, objected to ~%e request, stating it wc,uld start a precedent. He commented that he tried to get the other seg- ment of Third Avenue south of C Street vacated at one time, but was turned down. C Street is not paved and this would only generate more traffic. He questioned whether this area could be served by the Fire Department° Me~er Rice assured him that it could. Mr. Higgins indicated that if the street were continued through, and th~:y had to take a portion of his property to do this, it would mean the removal of the trees. Mr. Dean Smith, 275 Sea Vale also objected to the request. He said he purchased his home here in June 1966 mainly because he liked the char- acter and variety of this area. With this request, they will be "c]in~ing the hill with multiple-family zoning" and ruining the area. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Men~er York felt there was j~stification for the variance in that the new proposed zoning ordinance provides fo~ 1500 square feet of land ar~a per unit. Another factor would be that the applicant preferred not to ask for a zone change which would allow him 90 units on the site~ Men~er Hyde agreed, commenting ~at the applicant has demonstrated willingness to cooperate in every way. With a variance, M~3o Hyde ad~[ed, the Commission does have control over the devel{~ment~ assuring compatibility with nearby single-family use. Me~er Adams agreed~ adding 'that he felt this plan was the best and they should grant this proposal. The fact that the new proposed zon- in? ordinance provides for units having 1500 square feet per land area co, id be stated as an exceptional circumst~gce. Me~er Rice commented that h~ wasn't sure that ~ere was a demonstrated ne~d here for 1500 square feet; however, the plan proposes a good de- velopment. Me~er Hyde felt the exceptional circumstances could be the topography, th~ terrain, and the problems and the complication of problems associ- ated with the paper street as related to the property. -17- Assistant City Engineer Gesley said the purpose of having this street is to serve proDerties on each side of the street. Mr. Gesley ex- plained that with the trailer park development at a lower level, it takes off 50% of the need for this street, and if this property is developed at this time, and takes access off "C# Street, another 25% for the need for that street is removed. Now the need for the street is down to 25%. As far as the City is concerned, this applicant would be required to improve the street only if he gains access from it. The property should provide sewer to the industrial property to the north - it is difficult to provide access from Del Mar because of the difference in elevation from that from #C" Street to the north portion of Third Avenue, although this could be done. City Attdrney Lindberg noted that the developer has already indicated thst he is willing to participate in a portion of the paving of this street adjacent to his property. He suggested they execute an agree- ment to that effect. The property takes frontage from "C" Street and there is no obligation for a dedication on the applicant's part for this street improvement. However, the applicant has agreed to improve and dedicate one-half of the street. Mr. Warren felt the staff's recommendation of 24' of paving with curb and gutter was a feasible one. The details can be worked out with ~he developer and the staff. City Attorney Lindberg clarified the applicant's agreement in that it would involve construction of a curb, gutter and sidewalk, and one-half of the paving on the street the entire length of his property° ~r. Higgins stated he agrees to this. i.~SUC (Adams~Hyde) Request be approved subje~=t to the following co~%- di~ions: 1. The plan shall be modified as appropriate with an attempt to maintain the existing row of eucalyptus trees along ~e weste~rly property line. 2o Detailed plans for development shall be submitted to the staff for approval for the buildings as well as site plan. 3. The developer shall participate in the public improvements within the 30' right-of-way segment of North Third Avenue adjoining this property. Details of the improvements ho be approved by the ?lan- ning Department and the Engineering Department. Said ~rtici?a- tion shall include the preparation of the plans. 4. Utility service from the street ~d on the site shall be under- ground. -18- Findings be as follows: ao 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 new zoning ordinance is under development which will establish a density of development of one unit per 1500 square feet of land area for multiple-family use. This ordinance is not now available and rezoning to ordinaxy R-3 would permit a density greater than the property can properly a¢oomodate. Said density requested is deemed appropriate because of the topography and lo~ cation of the site. b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable %o the property involved or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply generally to other property in the san~ zon~ or neighborhood. The property to the east and north is in the County ~%d is vacant and improperly zoned. Plans studied for development reveal that ~he site will progerly accommodate a greater density of develop- ment than originally considered before annexation. c. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such zon~ or neighborhood in which the property is located. The pm~perty to the west is zoned C-2 and de~eloped with mult3%pte- family use; it is separated by a change in elevaticn of from 20' to 25'. The property to the east will be developed at a dens~.ty probably greater than that for which it is now zoned. d. That the granting of a variamce will not be contrary to the objec- iiv~s of the General Plano The density of development and relationship of this site to ~[- jacent areas is such that the objectives of ~e General Plan ~i!l not be materially affected. PUBL~C HEARING - VARIANCE - P~__c~qest for ~eduction in front ~e__tbackfro__m. 25' to 19' - South side of Davidson Str~eet, 150' w__es_~t ~f Fifth A~-~ - ~0-O-A~sociateW The application was read in which a request was made for a reduct~.on of froat yard setback from 25' to ].9' for the purpose of con~tructin~ a I7 m%it apartment complex. -19- Director of Planning Warren submitted the plot plan noting the location and shape of the parcel, the adjacent land use and zoning. He noted thet much of the parking will be underneath the buildings. The present setback along Davidson is 25' - his reduction in setback request is necessary, to achieve the density proposed here. Along with this de- velopment, there will be a 4' dedication adjacent to Davidson to the City for sidewalk. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. ~r. Darrell Fields, partner of 6000 Associates, stated this will be a quality constituted complex consisting of one, two and three bed- rocm units. Director Warren reviewed the recommendations of approval as submitted by the staff. Mr. Fields stated they were all acceptable. Mr. Paul Peterson, 260 Fifth Avenue, questioned whether the variance wo~ld have any effect on the driveway that would exit to Fifth Avsnue. As it now stands, the driveway would be 5' from his bedrooms which are on the north side of his hom~. He further stated that no ~ntion was ma~.e to erect a fence or wall here to separate this develop~nent f~rom ~%{ residential area° Di=ector Warren indicated that the Commission hasbeen advised by the Ci%y Attorney in the past that any conditions attached to a variaac.e shcu!d be directly related to tkat variance. If the setback reduction involved the Fifth Avenue frontage~ ~his w~ald probably be a condition the staff would recommend. In this case, it could not be a recomnen- dation of the staff~ however, it would be good if the applicant would co~sent to constructing a fence or wall here. City Attorney Lind~erg suggested in~osing a condition to have undergrounding of utility vice from t~e street~ Mr. Fields stated this would be no problem; he a~ded it was thei~ tort to construct a 6~ fence along this property ~n Fifth Avenue~ City Attorney Lindberg asked if the Commission would include this sa~e underground utility contrition for the Robert Higgins varianc~ pre- vicusly considered. Me~er Rice felt it should definitely be a condition. There being no further con,eat, e~er for or against, the hearin~ was declared closed. Me~er Gregson commented that he would rather see a wall constructed al(,ng this Fifth A=enue property rather than a fence that could be knocked down. -20- Mr. Fields declared that this was not an assigned parking area and would probably get little use. They have more than enough parking spaces under cover. Member Rice commented that this will not get as much usage as it ap- pears and it should not be a problem. MSUC (Guyer-Rice) Variance request be approved subject to the follow- ing conditions. 1. The northerly 4' will be dedicated to the City for the construc- tion of a sidewalk monolithic with the curb. 2. ~ 2%' wide utility easement and a 10' wide tree planting easement located 4' from the existing property line shall be offered to the City. 3. A minimum of one (1) street tree at least 6' high shall be pro- vided and a landscape plan for the Davidson Street frontage shall be submitted to the staff for approval. 4. Any signs placed within t~e setback area shall be approved by the Planning Department. 5o A 6' high fence shall be constructed between the residence a~d the development east of Fiftk Avenue and south of Davidson Street~ 6. The developer shall install underground utility service from the street right-of-way and cn the site. Fin~ings be as follows= a. That the strict application of the zoning regulations or requ~re- men'~s would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hards~hips inconsistent with the genera] pulpose and intent of the regulatier~s. The unusual shape of the lot requires a smaller f~ont setback in order to best utilize site for access to the rear parking area° b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to ':l%e property involved or ~o ~e intended use or development of the proi~erty ~hat do not apply generally to other property in the sam~ zon~ or neiglfoorhood. The north side of the stxeet has a 15' setback existing and t~e south side from Broadway, east to within 250' of Fifth Avenue~ has a 15' setback. Co 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 building will set back !5' from the property line which is the same se~)ack required for the other properties in the area. -21- d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to ~e objec- tives of the General Plan. The General Plan is not affected. The Commission also moved that the same condition (96) relating to underground utility service be applied to the previous variance granted Mr. Higginsa R_~,uest by C. Kiffee for modification of conditions of variance for p~opgrty at southwest cqrner"6f Qulintard and Hii/-66~ Dizector of Planning Warren delineated the elements of the variance previously grnated to Mr. Kiffe. One question that came up at the ti~ was how to accommodate his offstreet parking. He proposed to provide one enclosed garage for one car per unit and any additional cars to be parked on a tandem basis in the driveway. The conclusion of the Planning Commission was that a slight modification of his plan could provide for two spaces behind the front setback. Mr. Kiffe contends that if both spaces must be covered and behind the front setback, final plot plan studies show that most of his front yar~ will have to be paved. This, he believes, will be aesthetically dis- pleasing and will hamper financing and sales. Because of his concept (R-3 development), he shou}~4 be permitted to do this without setting a precedent. The staff can see no problem with the precedent, and perhaps the tandem parking is the lesser of two evils. Tihe Co~J.s- sion shoul~ weigh the advantages of having two covered parking spaces per unit as opposed to the aesthetic appeal of less paving~ more land- scaping and possibly a better resultant building design. In regard to this request, Mr. Warren continued, there is ~ome ques-- tioa as to the intent of the resolution. It would appear that the basic reason for approving this parcel map procedure was the assump- tion of the verbal agreement of Mr. Kiffe that street improvements would be put in in the same manner as they would be put in in a sub- division. The staff believes it was your intent that the improve- men~s be put in in accordance with a subdivisiun procedure and w~uld now ask that you acknowledge this intent for benefit of clarification. ~here seem~ to be a question as to whether all street improve-ments should be constructed at one time - or bond posted for s~e - as would be ~he case with a subdivision, or whether they could be constructed on ~ piece-meal basis as building per, ts are issued. Memoer Adams declared that this was definitely the intent of the Com- mission. Mr. Warren acknowledged a letter from the San Diego Gas & Electric Com- pan]{ regarding the cost of underground utilities. He pointed out that the requirement for underground utilities is for services from the exi~ting utilities in the street. -22- City Attorney Lindberg informed the Co~m%ission that they will shortly have before them an ordinance requiring underground service for all structures in the City, with or without a s%%bdivision. Mr. Kiffe explained that what he is trying to do here does work %5~.der a normal subdivision law; he will do what he agreed to do, other .than the parking. All of the dwellings will be built at one time because it would be impractical to build one building at one time. They! will be building 15 duplexes and are presently working on the apartment complex which will be constructed behind it. Mr. Kiffe discussed the street improvements in the area indicating that they will improve t~eir part of them; however, the City should first improve the ot~er hal f of this street since it is a road hazard at the present ti~.. As far as bonding is concerned, he would instead put up savings stamps, he doesn't need to bond. The Conunission discussed the tandem parking. Chairman Stewart in~i- cared the result of this proposal would be that one car wo%%ld be manently on the street. Mr. Warren commented that they had recently amended the ordinance in such a way that they would not be able to pave the entire front or,.er to privide front parking. In trying to provide two spaces .Der %m~t, they initially felt they could come up with more landscaping than the plan shows. There is also the question of the two spaces per unit - he actually needs only 1% spaces per unit for a duplex, but will be selling these units separately° Mez~er Hyde commented that this could be compared to an 1850 square foot home with a two-car garage~ Me~er Rice said he could see nothing here but a decrease in parking and gaining more trouble as time goes by. Mr. Kiffe df. scussed similar developments in other cities~ He noted that his garages would be 25' deep and provide room for laundry facil- ities an6, storage° Di.~:ector Warren co~aented that this whole development is an experiment, if we're not willing to gamble, we will perpetuate monotony inde~i- nitelyo There is the possiki!ity that the Commission will find %his develop~r, ent is not a good one and will not approve another. Member Gregson asked what the Engineering problem was concerning this project. Mr. c~sley, Assistant City Engineer, stated that they %~'ere asked by the City Council tc make a report on the participation ¢~f Qu~atard Street. No grade has been established by profile except for the existing grade that is %/~ere now. Mr. Gesley also co~%ented on th~ street lights and asked that the applicant be required to install or~"~m~ental street lights. Mr~ Kiffe said he would object to putting up any more poles in this area to accommodate these 1].ghts. -23- Mr. Gesley stated it would be a matter of only 2 or 3 poles, and this condition is one they wauld impose on any ordinary subdivision. MSUC (Hyde-Adams) Resolution No. 67-48 shall be amended by deleting conditiQn ~6 and adding in its place: "Two offstreet parking spaces shall be provided per u~it - one space shall be in an enclosed garage, the other may be tandem within the driveway." It is also the Commission's intent that all development should be in accordance with existing subdivision procedures even though a parcel map was permitted~ Street improvements for Hilltop Drive, Qulntard Street and Tobias Drive shall be constructed simultaneously. Ornamental street lights should be installed, but this is a detail that should be resolved by ~e Division of Engineering. R_c~['~est for waiver .of ~on~- wall requirement - Princess Manor Sh_c~p_~ping Center - Melrose Avenue D~rector of Planning War~n explained that the C-N zone require~ that a 6' high masonry wall be cons'=ructed along the property line of a shopping center when adjacent to a residential area. In this case, t!~e property to the north and east is zoned R-1 but only that to the e~st is developed with homes. The topography of this area is s~[ch that the property to the east is 20' to 25' higher than the shopping c~nter. Mr. Warren indicated that this wall may be elin%inated by t~e Com~ission if they fin~{ that the residential areas will be suf- fLcientiy screened without the wall. The staff believes that a wall constructed at the top of this easterly slope would serve no pu~:pose; h.~wever~ the property to the north fronting on Melrose may be s dif- f=.rent matter. That prope~ty is 6' higher in elevation than th(.~ shop- ping center and when this property is developed for residential use, t~e elevation will have to be lowered to street level~ In this soec~, it would be impractical for the developer to const~act a wall a~.ong this northerly property at this time, since it would have to be r~=moved at some future date° 'i".}e staff woul~ recommend ~'~at the Commission waive %he requir~.~ent for a wall along the easte~:iy property line and defe= the requ~:ement f~r a wall along the north~;rly line until such time ~s the final[ gr.~de of the pl, operty is est.~33iished and residential const~uction be- gins. Also, that a bon~ o.~? lien be posted to guarantee later struction of the northerly wall. MS~C (Guyer-Hyde} Approval of waiver for the wall along the eas'~.erly property line and deferral of the requirement for such a wall along the northerly line until s~ch time as the final grade of that e3;ty to the north i~ established and residential cons~truction b~-gins. The def-~rzal is conditione~! upon the signing of an aq!reement with the City %31~t said wall will be constructed, guaranteed with a bond or lien upon the property. The ~mount of bond or lien s~hall be de~e~- ~ined by the Chief of Housing and Building, and the agreement slall ke approved by the City At'~-orney. '£he above requirements m~st accomplished before any buLldings on the site are occupied~ _Re~uest for ap;?rova! of "move-in" - 125 North Glover Avenue Director of Planning Warren explained that the applicant is proposing to ~ove an existing building from National City to 125 North Glover Avenue (an M-1 zone) which now requires approval by the Planning C~m- ndssiOno The building was inspected by the Building Department an~ reco[m~ended for approval subject to certein building conditions. The staff looked at the proposed move-in as it relates to t~e site and the proposed structure to be built, found that it would be compatible with the area and would therefore recommend approval. MSUC (Adams-Rice) Recommend to City Council the approval of the ~'m~ve- in" to 125 Nor~--h Glover Avenue° In accordance with Section 8.21 of the City Cod~, the Commission found that the building would be com- patib!e with the surrounding area based upon the standards delineated. in said section. The Comr.~ssion reco~/nends that the relocation of subject building be approved subject to any other departmental re~ quir~nts. Request for approval of si~s - Wood's ApRliances - 28 Third Avenue Director of Planning Warren noted that on October 2, 1967, the appli- cant was denied a variance request by the Commission for 192 squar~ feet of sign a~ea from 50 square feet permitted in this zone. The applicant has now submitted a sketch of what he has in mind for this business establishment as to revising his signs to conform to the ordinance. One sign will be at the front of the building below the roof line, 16" x 15' long consisting of brown letters on a white back- ground. The applicant also proposes six small signs on the west side of this building containing 14 square feet total - advertising sales, service, parts; and five small signs on ~e west side above the back door totaling 17 square feet - advertising the manufacturers Maytag, Kelvinator, etc. The total sign area would equal 48% square feet, and the staff would recommend approval. Chairman StewaI~ commented that there are many businesses in this area with more sign area than what the applicant is proposing. MSUC (Adams-Yo~k) Approval of the following signs~ i. One sign at the front of building located below the roof line 16" wide x 15' long consisting of brown letters on a white background. 2. A series of six (6) small signs on the west side of the building towards Third Avenue containing 14 square feet total - advertising sales, service, parts~ etc. 3. A series of five (5) sigus on the west side above the back door totaling 17 square feet - advertising Maytag, Kelvinator, Amana, etc. - ~. -25- ~~~st for extension of varianc:e - 5'~1 F.oosevelt Street -. Director of Planning Warren explained thè.t this involves ';l varianc,~ apprClved by th~', Commission. on May 1, 1.967, for t~e construction of a uiple:t :i.n an R-2 zone - the property also hae: an existing dwel1.!,n.¡ on it. The variance is due to expire on November I, and the applicants ar,~ asking for an extension of time in order to obtain financing for \:.leiI:' project. The !,taff recolI'..mends approval c,f this request. rn.suc (Riçe"Gregson) Approval of the r.aqu;;:st for a six-month exten5 ion of time. ReCO!,wendation .- Koenig's SweebJater \Talley Annexation Director of Planning Warren explained thê.t the Commission has alre~dy ta,ken ac'tion to prezone this property to R-l-B-20. He noted that. this proFerty comprises 19~ acres front.ing on Bonita Road, approximateJr 1350' ea'3t of otay Lakes Road. Annexation of this property will l.aave <I County island; houever, it was approved by the Local Agency Forma- ti 011 Cmmm.s.,Üon. Generally, the staff at:tempts to discourage cre¡-:d:ion of county islands, but in this case, the property is essentially va- cant. The staff would, therefore, reoonullend thai: this annexation be - appz'oved. To Ee Set: for Hearing - Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Establishin~ Amusement Enterpr~ses as uses sUbject to a conallEIonal use pe¡~lt in the c-~M=l and M-2 zones --- Dire,ctor of Planning Warren explained thëlt this am(!",'\dment would modify the C-2, M-l and M-2 zones to allow for amusement enterprises under the conditional use permit requirements" An emergency ordinance en- acting this wa<> passed by the City Council on October 31 which is valid for 90 days. Mr. Warren asked that this be set for hearing b~~ the November 20 meeting. MSUC: (York-Rice) Call a public hearing felr November 20, 1967, to con- sider an amendment to the zoning ordinance establishing amusement enterprises as uses subject to a conditional use permit in the C-2, M-l and M-2 zones. - - - -26- - Establishing dates for Planning Commission workshop sessions Director of Planning Warren discussed possible dates for workshop meetings in order to review the proposed new zoning ordinance before another public hearing is scheduled. He suggested November 13 and 27 - both Mondays. He stated that the Pacific outdoor Advertising Company will make a presentation on the 27th. The Commission agreed that these two dates were acceptable. Member Adams suggested the meetings be held in the Administrative Conference Room rather than a dinner meeting, since they will be able to accom- plish more business this way. Director Warr4n indicated that they may be able to combine the sign presentation with a dinner meeting. Member Gregson stated he would not be able to attend the meeting on the13th. MSUC (Guyer-Hyde) Scheduling of two workshop meetings - November 13 and November 27 - to be held at 7 p.m. in the Administrative Conference Room to review the new proposed zoning ordinance. - Planning Course Member Hyde mentioned that he, along with three members of the Plan- ning staff, are attending a planning course at State College. League Dinner Notices Member Adams asked that the Coræmission be given more notice of these dinner meetings. Director Warren stated a copy of the notice would be mailed to them each mont.'1. Telegraph Canyon Road Rezoning A letter was read from San Diego County Planning DeplArtment indicating that they beld two meetings of the prope¡¡;ty owners in this area and the second meeting was so poorly attended that they were forced to conclude that sufficient public support for planning and zoning effort in this area does not exist. Therefore, they decided to take no fur- ther action toward zoning the area at this time. They will, however, work with the staff in an attempt to overcome the present obstacle in this area. - Member Adams felt this was poor policy on their part since the damage will be done by the time they get around to it. ~ - -27- - ADJOURNMENT KSUC (Rice-Gregson) Meeting be adjourned at 11:00 p.m. to the meeting of November 20 and the workshop meetings of November 13 and 27 to be held in the Administrative Conference Room beginning at 7 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~z~ - <-