Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1967/10/23 ORIGINAL 'i ~tEETING OF A PEG~LAR ADJOURNED ME, ETING OP THE CITY PL,~-2~N±NG ~u.~4I,~SION OF CHULA VISTA~ C,~3~iFOPi~!A October 23, 1967 The regular adjourned meeting of the city Planning Conlmission was held on ~he above date in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Guava Ave:H~e~ with the following members present: Guyer~ York~ Hyde~ Lda~!s, and ~re%,son. ~sent (with previous notification): Stewart~ Also pre~ent: Director of Planning Wamren, Associate Planner Manganel]i~ June.or Planner Masci~re!li~ City ~ttorney Lin~erg~ and Assistant City !~n~: neet c~lsey. The Secretary 9f the Commission hereby states that she did post wJ thin 24 hours of adjournment as requirad by law the order for the ~djo~rned ;~seting of OctDber 23, 1967~ 2~?P]~OVAL Of ~IINU?ES D~r~%ctor of P!~nning War~en noted that the minutes of October 2, ]967. ref~Lecae6~ the following changes: Ur~aer ehe ucnditions cf appro~ai fcra con4itionai use 9armit for Norman H.. 7ohnsoa, No. 2 should read 3i0' ~nstead of 3~10~ fo~ the d. imensions of th'k land~ Tke motion on th~ above item sboul6 reflect that ~4e~D~r York ~.ks rained from v~ting. }?~SUC (Rice-Adams) Approval of n~nvtes of October 2~ 1967~ of ]?!ann'[ng Waz/fen sub~ ...... d ~ p.~.ot plan ..... 2.~nd 'use~ ~.le w%~th~rl- noted that the applicant pro?oses 20 aures of ~'~ :: ,..~%c !ocats6 east of Mcnserate Avenue~ area Aas ~:3n developed sing!a family w'Auh three -2- Mr. James Craig~ engineer on project ~d representing applicant, ad- vised that he is at, are of ~: conditions of the P!anninq ~d Engineer- ing Departments and is in agreement with them. MSU2 (Adams-York) Approval of t-he tentative map of Mestler ~4anor Sub- division, Units 2, 3 and 4~ svbject to the following conditicns: I. The top of slope line on Lots 52, ~7~ and 35 shall be revised to coincide with the 10' setback line. 2. Unit No. 3 should be revised to include Lots 53 through 62 an~ the entire "L" shaped street patte~Tn. Lots 26 through 34 are approved in concept only since several of the lots have less than 7,000 square feet. Revision of the tots o~ the final map shall be subject uo staff approval. 4. Ali street frond:age dimension:~ shall be shown on t~.e final ~ap. Lot 15 may be acceptable s%foject to review of a plot plain tra%ing that th~.~ lot can properly acco~r~odate a house wi[;h open ~pace remaining. The st~ff r~2serves the right to requ~ retaining wall.~ where necessatcy. 6. Easements for the necessary utilities shall be granted or app~:o riate let-~-ers obtaine~ from t]~e utility companies~ The grade on Naples S%re,~t shall be lowered in order to i..'.rovi~e a summit sight distance for a sicced of 40 MPH. The City ~,~il! pay for the e:~p~3nse ~of lowering the pelm-~nent ~[3nts which have been constructed ~at the existing g~{'afl, e on Napl~s Street~ Temporal-3' ro~c~b~d constln2ction will be lop-eared at cost of 't.he developer. 9. The sight distance on th,-= sure,tit v~rtica! curve at the end of R~l.~ose ~A~enua shall b,~ designed for a speed, of 3~ ~'4£~H. This m~y rsqu. i~'e so~,.',e zaodification of e~[istJ, ng ir~[preve¥~ents on A~enue sout~'~er!y of the tract limits. The City may participa=e in this cost. The note on the tentative iaap regarding Melrose i~ =o be deleted° Cu~.:b radius of 30 fee~ ~i~ai! )e used ~n Naples ll, Additional sewer manholes shall flue constructe~i at the end. s of' the sewer lines° ~.~ho!e constru?~tion for eh©ri ~tensions ~a-y k a waived by the Cit? Enginaer o !2.Ail public i~provements shall be constructed s~ject to the p~:oval of the C]~ty Enginee.~c. !~..An 8 foot tree planting z. nd maintenance easem~-nt shall b~. on East Naples Street~ -3- 3UBD!VISION - Final Map - Rancho Vista Estates Unit No. 1 Director of Planning Warren submitted a final map showing the location~ zoning and adjacent land use, noting that the subdivision is west of Olea~ler on the south side of Telegraph Canyon Road, with a total of 61 sing,%e-fetidly lots; ~he staff recommends approval of this map subject to certain conditions. Assistant City Engineer Ges!ey discussed the conditions placed upon the subdivision by the Engineering Division with particular emphasis on the status of Ossa Avenue cul-de-sac, and noted that he is of the opinion that this should be rssolved by the Cor~ission. Mr. Dennis Wittman, Wittman Engineering Company~ submitted a map indi- cating proposed improvements to Ossa Avenue which provide for a cul-de- sac at 'the terminus of the street, to be located within the existing 54' ~:ight-of-way. In answer to an inquiry by F~. Gesley relative to acquiring additional right-of-way, F~ Wittman stated that the street will not have a heavy traffic count and he is of the opinion that ~he present right-of-way is sufficient for the needs of this area and that the requirement of additional right-of-%~'ay is unreasonable. Mr. %~ittman added, relative to the condition requiring a concrete block wall across the northerly right-of-.way cf Ossa Avenue~ that he had no objection to this condition but was of th~ opinion that a redwood fence, to conform with the existing fence in the area, would be mere practical. In answer to an inquiry by Member Adams~ 5Ir. Gesley stated that are 3?equiring a concrete block wall beck,use it creates a better appear~ ance than the redwood fence and also it involves fewer maintenanc~ prob-. lems, ~. Gesley advised that the standard right-of-way for a cul-de-sac is a 38' ~radius and that he is of the opinion that a 30' radius is necek'sary; undek' nor~.at conditions, it would be the minimum. He added that ac- quir~ng additional ri~ht~of-way should not be a problem. The Commission discussed further the requirement of the concrete wall and questioned if it were reasonable to require the concrete wall and also the additional right-of-way for Ossa Avenue° Memb:~r Ad. an~ noted that there are only t~aree houses on Ossa Avanue at this point and is of the opinion that tl~e existing right-of-way is ficient and also that the red%,rood fence would be accept~le. Greg:~on advised, that he was in agreement wi~ Member Adams,. ~[SUC (Hyde-Adams~ Approval of final map of Rancho Vista Estates vision, Unit No.~ z~ject to the ~otl(~w~ng conditions: 1. A temporary cul-de-sac shall be p~ovided at the end o~ -- Street ~tii suoh ti~ as Unit No~ 2 i~ completed. -4- 2. A cul-de-sac shall be provided at the 'terminus of Ossa Avenue to be constructed within the ' ' ~' exls~ng right-of-way. 3. A bond shall be posted to cover the street improvements on Ossa Avenue° These i~tprovements will include but shall not be limited to the following: Removal of pavement, concrete curb, gutter~ side- ~alk and driveways~ the preparation of plans and the construction of pavement~ concrete curb~ gutter, sidewalk and driveways; the instal- lation of trees and lawn area. PUBLIC HEARING - P~EZONING ~ 4201 Bonita Road -_____R-3-B-3-,D to R-3-B-2-D R. Wilson Director of P!'~%ning Warren read the application requesting resonin~ due to the fact 'that the area requirement Der dwelling unit is too strictive an~ Inhlb3~ts d_~elop~ent~ Director Warren submitted a plot plan of the area proposed for rezonhng noting the location~ zoninc3 and adjacent land use. The area invo!ve<~ contains approximately 9~ acres located on the north si~e of Bonita Road <:.= Allen School Road and ~utting the Chula Vista Municip~l Golf Cpu with approximately !880' of Bonita Rcad frontage ~:Dd is partially ~.m proved with 44 ~partment units. He added that the appl~,c.=nt ~5opose~ construct sdditional units on each side of the existing const_uu Mr~ ~4arren noted ~at the staff has~.,,~=~ feelings ab~ut~ %be ~ue to ~e fact that~ on the surface, i~ %~ould appear t~,~. the sity is too high for the Bonita area which.~'~ semi-rurak in~-~bar='c~'e The General Plan c~es~gnates this area ~.~ high densit~ ...... ~ ~' ' 15 u~its ~'~r gross acre) - th~ applicator p~op~ses ~:o ~z~7o~, ~,.~ g~. de~sity of 22 units f,{~r acz'e. Dir~ctor Warren added ~a't~ if -hhe Con~ m ......],on approves this zeou~o2~ ~'~ ks the .... "'~-' '~' ,:m,~= this ~pprovai be wl~h~e]O, from the 3~ ,,~r,.s on ....... ' a?:~rtmonts ~re Located; th/,s would dete:? ave~'ag.%.ng this pcrt3~on w., ,n ~ .~n~ the ~"~- " "place as advertised, the public hearing :tn~ ,~ unit to the eas~: and to ~e ~;est of the e~;istin[4 al~artn-~nts, : :~: couu::er:~:~.a.:, zones. Mr,, Wilson ad=.e,.~ that he is ewer:': ~ = ~.,:,~:,u..:~ de',~eJ_ops~ental guidelines and '3.s ~n agrec~ment with r.~'~ John SL~ar:.e~ 3737 palm Drive~ inqu:irea as to ~,~r, %Ti :( s on ~ ,%: plans ..... 1~-~.~ to parK.~ng ~,:~'~c:~].~tles -- the parking could cr,a~:e a .... :~ ~' -5- Director Warren stated that the applicant has in excess of the minimum required parking requirements; in the opinion of the staff, the parking has been well screened in comparison with the other complexes and the construction of additional apartments could help to screen the parking better. There being no further comments, either for or against, the public hear- ing was declared closed. Member Adams stated that he did not like to see the density reduced in this area because it is contrary to the concept on which the Valley is developing~ Member York noted that he was in favor of the request~ Member York noted that he was in favor of the request. Member Guyer noted that this should be considered due to the commercial development in the adjacent areas. MSC ~York-Hyde) That the area as requested, with the exception of the existing apartment development, be rezoned to R-3-B-2-Do Findings be as foliows: a. The rural character of the Bonita area is not so preponderant in ~e immediate vicinity of the subject property because of the com- mercial uses around it. bo While this proposed density is somewhat higher than shown on the General Plan, the property abuts a golf course which would provi6e the subject with an open space environment which could not be achieved by a development at a much lower density situated elsewhere. ~e following guidelines are suggested for development of subject property: a. The architecture of any new structures shall be harmonious with the existing buildings. The building height shall be limite~ to two stories or lesso c. The parking areas shall be screened similar to the existing screening° d. Since permitted density will be increased, new development shall be i~elated to the golf course in a manner that will take advantage of '~his permanent open space. The Commission voted as follows: AYES~ Members York~ Hyde, Rice~ an~ ~uye~ NOES: Members Adams and Gregson ABSENt: Chairman Stewart -6- PUBLIC HEARING - PREZONING - South side of B~nita Road, east of Otay Lakes Road - A(4) l to R-3-B 3'D, R-l-B-20 and R-l-B-.9 Jack Mestler The Secretary read the application requesting prezoning of the prop- erty located on the south side of Bonita Road, 1350' east of Otay Lakes Road and we~t of Palm Drive. The Director of Planning s%Lbmitted a plot plan indicating the loca- tion, adjacent land use and zoning. He noted that the app~cant pro- poses to subdivide this 18-acre parcel into one 3.8 acre R-3-B-3-D lot, 19 R-l-B-9 lots and 23 R-l-B-20 lots and that the property is presently County zoned A-1 and improved with a single-family dwelling and agricultural buildings. He further noted that annexation proceed- ings are being conducted by the Local Agency Formation Commission. Mr. Warren advised that the property slopes from Bonita Road (elevation 80'+) up to the northerly perimeter of the Bonita Bel Airs Subdivision (elevation 250'+); the northerly 50 - 60% is level to g~ently sloping while the remainder of the parcel slopes steeply° No subdivision map has actually been filed. The staff recommends that the property be prezoned R-l-B-20 which is that existing in the Bonita Bel Airs Subdivision and equivalent to ~hat to the east° This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Jim Patton, representing the applicant, was of the opinion that R-~-B-3-D is quite practicable at this point and that the commercial development which is imminent to the east should be stopped along Bonita Road someplace - he believes this is the logical point. Director of Planning advised that a petition has been received from approximately 20 property owners in ~%e area stating their objections to this zoning. Among those in opposition to the prezoning and who appeared at the meeting were Mr. Schnef, 3672 Valley Vista Road, Bonita; Mro Jannis, Camino del Cerro Grande; Mr° Dale Berkey, 4807 Del Prado.~ Mr° Gregory, 4825 Del Prado; Mrs. Everett Purdy~ 3804 Palm Drive; Mr. Harold Howard, 3817 Palm Drive; Mr. Vernon Sercey, 3824 Valley Drive; Mro Charles Benkleman, 3909 Palm Drive; who stated the following objections: (1) such zoning would not be compatible with existing zoning on adjacent de%~loped properties; (2) multiple dwellings would not be compatible with the zoning; (3) the grading of the development will create drain- age problems as well as mar the appearance of the area~ (4) the pro~ posed development will lower the value of th? surrounding pro~e~;.. (5) the lots should not be smaller than one-half acre in s~ze~ ~) =ne view would be obstructed; and (7) this Valley is one of iow density and high quality development should be reserved for this type of develop- ment since land for such use is limited in the Chula Vista area. -7- Mrs° Mason, Bonita, co-owner of adjacent lan~, stated that she is in favor of this development - any development that would improve the area. Mr. Paul Seng, representing the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association~ 3964 Acacia Avenue, requested the Commission to develop a policy for the development of this area. Member York noted that the southeast corner will ultimately be zoned con~nercial and it is not practical to have commercial zoning beside one-half acre residential zoningu-nless there is a natural boundary; however, he believes the character of this area should be preserved and high density residential use should be confined to the commercial area further west. MSUC (Hyde-Rice) Recom~ending to the City Council the prezoning of RESOLUTION NO. 483 a portion of the south side of Bonita ROad, east of Otay Lakes Road to R-1-B-20-D Findings are as follows: ac The General Plan designates this area as medium density residen- tial (4 - 7 units per acre) for a depth of approximately 550' (~he extent of the level area). The remainder of the property falls under the very low density classification (less than one unit per acre). The applicant proposes 14.5 units per acre on most of the level area and 2 - 5 units per acre on the r~mainder of the property. The high density land use shown on the General Plan map should be related to the intersection area further west and it would be desirable that any multiple-family development east of the intersection of Otay Lakes Road and Bonita Road not occur before a land-use pattern is set for that intersection area. b. The proposed zoning is incompatible with ~,e high quality single- family subdivision to the east. This subdivision contains lots of one-half acre or more with t~e parcels to the south of this tract even larger. c. The proposed uses would be incompatible with the semi-rural atmos- phere of the area. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - 374 Jason Place - Reques~ for reduction of "-- ~ear~ack from 20' to 13~- Go & D. Andersen The Director of Planning and City Attorney Lindberg agreed that the location of the building in relation to the rear property line neces- sitated re-advertising for the meeting of November 6~ 1967. MSUC (Rice-Hyde) Approved re-advertising the notice for public hearing at the meeting of November 6, 1967. ope ,,~d. ~-a, ~,ax ~13 Fields, ~O00 A~:socJ~tes, a. pplic~nt, stated t. he~t he is · ~ll lc':J, iities arid ,-,~ c' ..... c,n.~ p]~:.c~d within ~lie setbac~ ,'i?~ ~i mJ. rllnit'm Of tei,~ ~].0,~. i~t~'eet -9- 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 an4 intent of the regulations. The existing commercial and industrial zoning across "C" Street makes it more desirable to use the area now designated as re- quired "front setback", for use as interior patios. bo 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 adjacent properties are enjoying 15' and 20' setbacks and ~e existing slope from the south property line requires additional setback from the rear property line. 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. This use will not be materially detrimental since properties on either side enjoy setbacks equal to or slightly more than re- quested by the applicant. 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. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - Southeast corner Fourth Avenue and Center Street -' Increase bu.l~lding coverage 50% to increase sign area from $2 sqUare-~eet to i~s~re_. ~eet u Norman Johns0n The Secretary read the application requesting an increase in building coYerage from 50% to 52% and increase in sign area from 32 square feet to 180 ~quare feet for a temporary construction sign for the proper=y located at the southeast corner of Fourth Avenue and Center Street° Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan indi(~ating the ioca- rich, adjacent land use and zoning. Mr. Warren noted ~%at the Com- mission approved a conditional use permit for the applicants at a previous meeting for ~onstruction of a 177-bed convalescent facility. He further noted that while 50% lot coverage is maximum in an R-3 zone~ there is no maximum lot coverage in any of the co~m~erciai zones. The applicant has stated that most of the activity will be inside the build-~ ingo Mr. Warren noted that the applicant proposes to use 46 feet City property to the south for parking purposes and this area is in- cluded in the 52% coverage. The plan is dependent upon ~his use~ approval of the plan is based on the availability of the land. -10- City Attorney Lindberg stated that.~t is possible to work out an agreeable solution to the parking problem. Member York stated that he would abstain from voting on this request, of course, but certainly this should be granted on the assumption that the conditional use permit was - that the parking would be made available. Of course, if the parking isn't made available, then neither is valid. City Attorney Lindberg noted, in line with the purpose of limitation on lot coverage which would include availability of open space for parking and landscaping, it would be possible to proceed with the 52% coverage requirement. This was the basis of the granting of the con- ditional use permit. Since this land is dedicated park property, it is not possible to grant any kind of easement or lease. The Commission discussed the applicant using a piece of property(which is under the same ownership) to the north of his proposed development for parking if the City property is not available. Member York noted, to clear up any misapprehension, the present prop- erty owner is not involved in this particular development., so he is not in the position to provide parking on a piece of lan~ which he is reserving. Member York stated that it ~epends upon what the Commission means by the same ownership because we have an option on the 200' but we do not have an option on the 95'. Dizector Warren noted that the Co~ssion would probably have to assume that there is no other property available there--- the property is owned by someone else, is unavailable - and try to determine if there is justification for a variance based on the plans submitted and the type of use. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Norman Johnson, the applicant, stated that he had nothing further · to add to the comments of the staff and the Commission~ and that he was in agreement with the conditions. There being no further comments~ either for or against, %he pubikc hearing was declared closed. MSC (Hyde-Gregson} Approval of request for increase in building cover- age to not more than 52% and increase sign area to 180 square feet for a temporary sign subject to the folio'wing conditions: -11- 1o The sign be allowed to remain on the site as long as it is main- tained in good condition, observes setbacks, and shall be limited in time to the complet%on of constr~ction, or one (1) year, which- ever comes first° 2. A minimum two (2) foot wide landscape strip shall be provided along the south wall of the building and a landscape plan for the entire site Shall be approved by the Planning Director prioz' to final building inspection. 3. Development of the plan in accordance with subject conditional use permit granted October 2, 1967~ Findings be as follows: ac 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 patients housed in ~his type of facility are such that super- vised activity within the building, both recreational and physical, is essential to their recovery. (2) The sign is for temporary use only and would be removed at completion of construction. b. That there are exceptional clrc~msaances or conditions applic~%ble 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 zon~ or neighborhood. (I) The joint parking agreement signed by the applicant and the City will mean the overall site will have less than 50% lot cover- age and this type of use is frequently developed in commercial sones, which have no maximum coverage requlremen-. (2) a 320 square foot sign would be too small to adequately advertise the proposed ~evelopment on a parcel of this size. 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° (ii~) This facility will not contribute to any conditions causing noise, dirt, smoke, etc. (2) The sign is only temporary and will observe the required setback lines. do That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the obj(~c- tires of the General Plan. (!) The use has already been approved and is not contrary to the General Plano (2) The General Plan will not be affected. The Commission voted as follows: AYES: Members Hyde, Gregson~ Rice, Adams, Guyer NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Stewart ABSTAIN: Member York PUBLIC HEARING - VARIA/~CE - Northeast corner Third Avenue and "C" Street - I~crease dehsit~ of development fro~"'one unft per 20.00 square feet to Oae unit per 1500 sqUare fe~t T Rober~..~. Higgins The Secretary read the application requesting an increase in density of development from one unit per 2000 square feet to one unit per 1500 square feet on property located at the northeast corner of Third Avenue and "C" Street. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan indicating the loca- tion (the corner of "C" Street and Third Avenue North which is a "paper" street) ~ adjacent land use and zoning and also submitted a detailed plan of the proposed development which consists of 60 apartment units~ Director Warren noted that the property was recently annexed and re- zoned from County R-2 to its present classification of R-3-B-2-D. The property has an approximate 8 - 9% downslope from southeast to north- west which would probably necessitate the pumping of sewerage from any units placed at the rear of the property unless fill material is brought in. Mr. Warren noted that the applicants propose to construct 20 two-bed- room units and 40 three-bedroom units with covered parking and, under the present density requirement, can only accommodate 58 units. Director Warren added that the staff does not recommend approval of this request due to the fact that they can find no justification for a variance. If rezoning is appropriate, such should be granted. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mro Robert C. Higgins, the applicant, advised that he proposes to con- struct ~0 ~eluxe apartment units and, in order to construct these de- l%%xe units, it is necessary to reduce the 1~%d density requirements. Mr. Donald Jolly, J. B. Thompson and Donald Jolly Associates~ archi~ tects, explained the site plans and development of the arc, ac Those speaking in opposition to the request were Steven Ac Patrez, east of ~e proposed development; Isabelle Long, 160 North Del Mar; Dean Smith, 275 Sea Vale Street and Ann Welker~ next to Mrs. Long; who sta~ed their o~jections as follows: (1) Third Avenue North is just a ~paper" street, (2) the density of the development~ (3) access to other property in area, (4) basis of aesthetic removal of ~e trees, (5) re- ducing standards of the City - the development is called "deluxe" units but yet they are reducing the size of them, (6) covered parking is fur- nished for only half of the parking requirements, (7) topography of the area seems to be inconsistent with R-3 development, and ($) development would impinge on the value of the other property in area. Director Warren explained that Third Avenue North is a dedicated but unimproved street and referred to as a "paper" street. It has been discussed vacating this portion of the street and it appears that all properties could be served without it, but no formal study has been made. However, the status of this street is not the key issue of the request° There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams stated that he does not feel the Commission can find ex- ceptional circumstances to justify granting this variance - it is more important to have the right to develop in the right place than j~st develop. The Commission discussed the possibility of rezoning the property, but the present Zoning Ordinance does not provide for this density of de- velopment. MSUC (Hyde-Gregson) Continue public hearing to meeting of November 6~ 1967, in order for the Planning Department to study further the aspects of this request and also reconsider the future of the "paper" street to the north (Third Avenue North). Council Referral - Conditional Use Permit for a C~r Wash - Woodlawn Avenue, sou~h of "E" Street Director of Planning submitted a plot plan indicating the location, adjacent land use and zoning. He advised ~at, on September 18, 1967, the Commission denied a request for a conditional use permit to con- struct a coin-operated automatic car wash on the east side of Wood- lawn Avenue, south of "E" Street a~d the applicant had appealed the decision of the Commission to the Council. The Council subsequently referred the matter back to the Commission for further study. Director Warren stated that one of ~e reasons for denial was the ap- plicant's refusal to accept the conditions recommended by the staff~ and the staff has discussed these conditions with the applicant who has now agreed to conform to them° Mr o Warren continued that another ~eason was the fact that such a use is not usually compatible wi~% the other uses in the tourist-oriented area, and since the car wash would be constructe~ before anything else in this area, ~t could d~.- tate the character of subseq~ent uses in the area. Humb~.e Oil Company has recently been issued a building permit to construct on the ad- jacent corner property and, with this in mind, it may be appropriate for the Commission to approve the request, subject to conditions. In answer to an inquiry by Member York~ City Attorney Lindberg advised that the appeal is pending before the City Council who ha%~e asked for a further report by the Planning Commission; if the Commission approves the request, a report should be made in the manner that ~e Council approve the request due to the fact that certain circumstances have been changed. Mr. M. L. Faiman, 4351 Rodrigues Drive, San Diego, the applicant, ad- vised that he is in full agreement with the ~onditions which have been set by the Planning staff, with the exception of the one setting the hours of operation - he is requesting they be permitted to operate on a 24-hour basis u~til such time as this operation becomes a nuisance in the area, at which time the hours could be limited by the staff. Member Adams expressed his opinion that t/~is development i$ entirely incompatible with the area and does not think it is a public necessity; in regard to the 24-hour operation - this makes it even more incom- patible. Member Hyde stated that he agrees with Mr. A~ams; a conditional use permit must meet certain qualifications and there has not been ade- quate proof that a car wash at this location would provide a necessary or desirable service, there has been no indication from the residents of the area that a car wash would be desirable and the construction of 'this facility would establish the character of the future develop- ment in this area. Mr. Mitchell Angus, 5482 Glover Drive, San Diego, owner of the prop- erty, stated that he also o~ed t~e adjacent property and he certainly would not wish to develop this property with a use that would not be con~atible to the neighborhood. The Conm~ission discussed in more detail the conditions set by the staff for this facility, with particular emphasis on the hours of operation and requiring the car wash construction to be conditional upon the construction of the proposed service station. MSC (York-Gregson) Recommending submitting a report to City Council approving the request subject to the following conditions: 1. The front setback area shall be landscaped ~d provided with a sprinkler system. Plans for same shall be approved by the staff. Some form of screen wall would be desirable. 2. A maximum sign area of 50 square feet be permitted as approved by ~he staff. Such signs shall be flush building signs~ 3. Elevation sketches shall be submitted to the staff for approval of signs and color schemes. Colors shall be coordinated with the proposed Humble Oil service station to the north. 4o The parkway area shall be fille~ with concrete and two (2) street tr~es plan'~ed (25 gallon minim%~)0 5. The 15' wide access easement shall be paved with minimum 2" over decomposed granite, subject to approval of the Division of Engineering approval after site analysis. 6. The operation of t~e car wash shall be on a 24-hour basis until such time as this becomes a nuisance in the estimation of the staff, at which time the hours will be reduced to a limit approved by the staff. 7. No construction shall be started until simultaneous constr~ction is begun on the propose~ service station on the adjacent corner property. 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 co~m~unity. A car wash, depending on its size and location, is a use which is useful in a visitor-oriented area. b. That such use will not, under the circumstanc~ 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 o~ improvements in the vicinity. Since the use will be primarily conducted in an enclosed building and will abut a service station and market~ no detriment to the area should be evident. This two-bay facility is ~ma!l enough to be sufficiently inoffensive. c. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and condi.- tions specified in the Code for such use. The conditions imposed and the applicable Ordinance requirements 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 a~y governmental agency. The General Plan will not be affected by this proposal. The Commission vote was as follows: AYES: Members York, Gregson, Rice and Guyer NOES: Member~ Adams and Hyde ABSENT: Chairman Stewart -16- ~pproval of Plans - 385 "K" Street - L. Kuebler Director of P~tanning Warren submitted a site plan of the proposed de- velopment at 385 "K" Street~ noting that the plans call for a 75-unit apartment building which will be developed at a ratio of one %mit per 1250 square feet of land. He further advised that the property had recently been rezoned to R-3-D and pointed out the adjacent l~d use. Director Warren advised that the proposed elevations reflect a front of Palos Verde stone, stucco and shake roof - the same materials are used on a portion of 'the west elevation but only stucco of a harmoni- zing color is proposed for the east elevation. The staff recommends approval of the plans subject to conditions. Mr~ Charles Bislinoff, one of the property owners, read a letter from Jack Ro Mestler~ owner of the property to the east of this development, relative to his future plans for development which will conform to this construction° ~. Bislinoff went into more details of their plans for the property in question. MSUC (York-Rice) Approval of the plans for 385 "K" Street, subject to the following conditions: 1o Final landscaping plans, as well as signs will be submitted to the Planning staff for approval° 2o That some form of partial screening of the parking area adjacent to "K" Street be provided by either a masonry wall or effective landscaping. The decision in this regard shall be made by the Director of Planning. Resolution of Interpretation - Zoning Classification for Pet Stores Director of Planning Warren advised that, during the past few months, the staff has received several inquiries concerning under what condi- tions and in which zones pet stores could be located in the City; this use is not classified in the Zoning Ordinance although there are pre- sently existing pet stores in the C-1 and C-2 zones° Mr. Warren noted that a Commission resolution~ dated April 22, 1957~ concerning this matter is on file but the conditions required by this resolution are outdated and somewhat unreasonable. The staff re¢o~ends that this use be permitted in the C-1 and C-2 zones, subject to certain conditions. MSUC (York-Gregson) Resolution of the Planning Commission establishing RESOLUTION NO. 484 the operation of a pet store in the C-1 and C-2 zones, subject to the following conditions: 1. All animals shall be kept at all times in a completely enclosed building, the walls of which shall be soundproofed° 2. Animals shall be kept for sale only. Any commercial building or boarding of animals are prohibited. -17- To Be Set for Hearing - "D" Zone for Chula Vista. Shopping qenter Stores Director of Planning Warren advised that the Broadway and Sears Shop- ping facilities were developed on 51 acres of C-2 zoned property~ and since the original construction, numerous additions have been added° The staff feels that the original buildings and color scheme had a definite character or theme which has not been adhered to in some of the new construction; in order that a definite architectural design may be maintained within this complex and that proper expansion will be encouraged, the staff is recommending the supplemental "D" zone be attached. Mr. Warren noted that additional construction is being considered but no plans have been submitted to the Planning Department. It was further noted that it should be recognized that the present sig~ restrictions under the "D" zone classification are not practica! for a shopping center complex, and any additional sign approval will require zone variance applications. MSUC (Rice-York) Set for hearing on November 6, 1967, the placement of the "D" zone on the C-2 zoned property at the Chula Vista Shopping Center Stores on "H" Street. ~eport on "D" Zone for 210 Davidson Street Director of Planning Warren advised that on October 2, 1967~ the Com- mission recommended approval of R-3 zoning for a portion of the prop- erty located at 210 Davidson Street, at which time the Commission also recommended placing the "D" zone on the entire property, in response to requests from adjacent property owners, if the City Attorney de- termined this is a legal procedure. The City Attor~ey has advised that, since the rezoning only concerned part of the property and no mention was made on the legal notice of the Commission consideration of the "D" zone for a portion of the property, a hearing will have to be set before the "D" zone can be attached to the entire property: ~SUC (Gregson-York) That no further action be taken° Request for Extension of Time - Palomar Plaza Subdivision Director of Planning Warren advised that the map concerns a 15-acre parcel located at the easterly terminus of Palomar Street and adjacent to the proposed Inland Freeway (Route 805); the developer has proposed to create 30 residential lots and two commercial lots which would com- prise approximately 5~4 acres of the development. Mr. Warren stated that a different map was first submitted in t961; the last submission was on May 3, 1966, which expires November t0, 1967, an~ the subdivider, H~ R. Lovett, is requesting an extension of time for one year. -18- Director Warren noted that the staff is of the opinion that it is time to record a final map for this area or to abandon the existing tentative map; if the map is continually renewed without resultant development, the City is essentially giving this owner an exclusive right to commercial development for some future date and in the event that an owner of other property in the area were ready to im- mediately develop, it would be difficult to provide them with com- mercial zoning. If it is the desire of ~he Commission to extend this ma~. for another year (as permitted by the State Subdivision Map Act), the staff has recon~ended certain ¢onditionso MSUC (York-Gregson) Recommend to the City Council the extension of time for tentative map of Palomar Plaza Subdivision for a period of 90 days, subject to the following conditions: 1. The subdivider shall be required to install underground utilities. 2. The subdivider should be advised that a final map should be re- corded within the one-year time period following. 3o That fees for processing the final map be paid in conformance with the current schedule. Workshop Meeting Upon inquiry by Director of Planning Warren, the Commission set a work- shop meeting for October 30, 1967, at 7:00 pom. in the Administrative Conference Room for further study of the proposed zoning ordinance. Oral Communication Director of Planning Warren advised that the staff is of the opinion that such a use as an amusement slide should not be permitted in any zone without a conditional use permit because of what it might abut and ~he staff recommends that the Commission request Co~u~cil adopt an emergency ordinance at the earliest possible date to amend the Zoning Ordinance to this effect. MSUC (Rice-York) Recommend to City Council that the Zoning Ordinance be amended with an emergency ordinance to provide for a conditional use permit for constructing amusement enterprises in the City. ADJOURNMENT ~UC (G.rggson~ork) ~ee.tiDg $~jo~u..rn to the meeting of November 6, 1967. e meeting an]ourneu a~ ~£:~D ~.m. Respectfully submieted, Talley, Acting Secretary