Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1967/06/19 ORIGINAL MiNI!TES OF A [{~GULf%R AD3OUPRgED MEETING OF THE CITY - PLA'3NiN~q COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALiFOP~NIA June 19, 1967 The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on the above date at 7 p.l~. in the Council Char~ber~ Civic Center, 276 Guava Avenue, Chula Vista~ with the following men. ers present: Stewar~, York~ Gregson~ Rice~ Ad~s and Guyer. ~sent: Men. er Hyde (with pre-,. vious notification). Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Ju~ior Planner Masciarei!i~ City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant City ~.,~ng~ ~.eer Gas !ey. STATEMENT The Secretary hereby sta~es that she did post within 24 hours as re quoted by law~ ~e order for the adjourned meeting of June 5, 1967. APFkOVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Rice-Adams) Minutes of the meeting of J~'~e 5~ 1967~ be approved, as mailed. %~'U~LXC HEARING - Request for Variance in Sideyar~ Setback from 5' Zero - Earl and M~lne Sto~] - 275 ~[~ Street Th~ appiication was read in which a request was made for a reduction ~n ~'de yard setback from 5 fee'c to zero for t~e purpose of maintain~. i~.g an e~is'aing room addition to the dwelling. Direchor of Planning '~arren submitted a plot plan noting thc locatio~ of the request. [~k~rz~m enumerated the z~ning violations that exist J.n regard to this ~a~ter: (I) the Ordinance requires 5~ separation between the ad~itio~ ~.n~3 the side property li~e this addition appears to eM~end apprc~i ~te3~y 8" into the abu~Y~king property at one point; (2) there is ~ se[~aza'~zion of 2'4'~ between the addition and the neighboring dwel!in~ to the wes% - the Ordinsnce requirc:s 10'~ (3) the e~isting garage loch?ted ~.~ from the side property line add 3' fre~m the rear tine -~ the Ordinance requires it tc~ be 5: from the side yard and 20' from ~h~ rear yard~ (4) the two,--car garage has been replaced by a one-car por%'~ (5) +:hie carport is nndersized (measures 8~5~' x !6'2")~ (6) this c~::[~ozt is located 8'~ fro.~ the side property line - the Ordinance qu:[~:~s 5~ Mr. Warren state~ that the applicants had the choice of eitb,.~r applying for a variance or making the chan,{es .,~ecessary to f<~z~ to th~ zonin% ordinance. Thi~ beir:g the time and ?kace as advertised~ the public hearing was ~ir ]~d~in Campbeli~ attorney for the applicants~ stated he had no'thin~ to ~dd to Mr. Warren's statements, but would answer any questions~ ~r~ 3. O~ Baker~ 279 Whitney Street, complained that the addition was prot~udin~ into his DroDerty by 5" to 7", and that the side of the a~2~i~icn on the property line was not a fire-proof wall. ~e added that the addition was constructed about one year ago this sun~aer. Director Warren declared it %~as in 1965, according to the staff's records. Member York questioned Mr~ Baker as to why he waited so long to file his complaint. Mr. Baker remarked that he didn't w~nt to bother the owners at that tiue, and also, that it was to be a temporary building. City Attorney Lindberg co,~mented that the extension into the neighbor~ prof3erty line was something the two property owners have to settle the~elvc~s; however, if the variance is granted, the Building Depart- men% would see to it that the addition is brought up to Code. ~4r~ ~a~k~ 350 Broadway, Chula Vista, the former owner~ stated he built th~~ addition in the fall of 1964. At that time, he informed the B~.il~3,ing ~nspector as to what he planned to do~ Mr. Falk added that the Building inspector advised him that he could do this, if he got the consent of his neighbor~ and that he has two witnesses that could p.~c~e he got this consent. He maintained that he stayed on the property line and ~id not Drotrude into his neighbor's property. Chni:anan Stewart asked Mr. Fa!k if he ever obtained a building permit 5o constr¥~ct this addition. Mr~ Falk declared that he did not. - ~{e~..~ber Guyar discussed the various distances from the property line for the build~ng~ patio~ and garage~ and stated, that '.~he addition has an angle ,~oin~ north to south, which is not s~raight ~%n~ does seen~ to protrud, e into the adjacent owner's yar~. ~n answer to I~ember Rice~s question, l,~r. Fa!k stated the original ~ar&~e was never used as a garage because of the difficulty of gettin~ to it be~suse ~3f the narrow driveway, ~£~her~ being no furtker conunent~ either for or against~ the hearing %~as ~ect~ red closed. ~/3rs~ Maxine Storm~ the present owner and applican~ stated that escrc~ on ~his house closed the 25th of June and~ at that time~ they were not a3~3ar~ c~f any violation. On July 20~ Jack Smith, the 3uilding t:%spector~ infc3~e~ them of the violation. ~ember York asked what type of financing they had on this house~ Mrs~ St(3~a~ stated the present owners are carrying the First Trus~ Deed~ .~r. E~'_~wJ.n (~.%pbell declared that his clients are withholdin9- furthe~ payments on this Trust Deed until this matter is se~tled~ ~.em~er G~,~yer stated he could see no justificati~'Dn for this variance ~ t~ere ar~ no ~[ceptiona! circumstances about the property that would al.l?w ~hem ~o ~rant this~ The fact that it is al~o an encroachment o~ adj~co~%t ~rop.~rty add~ ~c ~.he problem~ -3- Member York co~ented tha~ the fox,er owner admits that he built this -- addition without ~ettin~ a building pern~it. City Attorney Lin~berg reiterated tha~ this encroachment of the build- ing into the neighbor's property is not an issue~ neither is whether this buildin~ c~>mp!ies with the Code° He then stated that there was a question of the time element involved here in which this violation has existed° ~he~e has been evidence that this has existed for 3 years - at least for ~ver 2 years. This is a difficult decision to make on a va~iance~ Mr. Lindberg stated that they have here a dispute between two property owner~ ~hat could be resolved as far as the variance aspect is concerned. Member York questioned wh~ther there was a Statute of Limitations on an encroac~ent into a setback~ City Attorney Lindberg stated there i~ none; however~ they could be confronted with a Practical Statute since this violation has existe~ for some time and then the transfer of the property~ Member York asked if this were justification for the Commission to make something legal t~at was illegally built. Mr, Lin,3~berg declared this was not - that he was Just pointing out the difficulties and the decision was the Cor~)ission's~ Men~er Y~rk agreed that the only problem before the Commission was the fact tha[~ this building was built in the setback area - the fact that it w~s built illegally, not up to Code and perhaps encroaching onto his neighbor's yard does not concern the Com~ission. He questioned tl~ City Attorney as to the fact that regardless of when this type of situation is brought to light~ there still exists the problem of it haying been built in a setback area. Therefore, when this does come ~to llght~ and %he Commission takes action to grant or deny it, or if th© ~wner takes action -to make this legal, ~ouldn't the Commission be on fairly good ground to consider this? ~r~ Lin~3erg stated he was not quarreling with the decision of the Com- mission, but merely pointing out what could occur in a legal action which might follow. Chain~-~n Stewart felt this was a good point to advise the Commission on~ howsver~ this may or may not occur sometime in the future. In this case, the fox, er o~l~er constructed a building in the setback area~ without a permit; it violates the zoning ordinance as well as the Building Code. Mr. Step,art claimed the ordinance was made to protect eve~one in the City~ and when it is violated~ the violator should tr~~ to correct it~ Member Ade~:~s agr~ed~ adding that the Commission should deny the request and the property owners should work out their own selection ,~ either b~. court action or by agreement. .',¥iSUC (~d~m~-Rice) Re<:iuest %:,e d~nied b-3sed on t~?.~, fo3.1cwing i. Tk~ is no jus~ificatio]% for approval ~f this r~:quest, in ~;iew of ~e Building In~peetol's opinion that th<~ addition ks s~ structurally unsound that it could not be brought up to Codec ~thout lib.;st ~ear!~ down the structure~ 2. No exoeptlonal circ%~st~ces p:~rtaining to the property could be found to justify granting the req~]est. The applicant wa~ advised of his right to appeal. PUBLIC HE~RIN~.~- Request for Variance in Fenc~ "~elg~' ~ ....... Re,=~r~.~lons~' in Front '~~F~3~"~'~ -, Ra~:ond ~ Lorene ~tt - 1029 Oleander Avenue The application was res~ in which a request w,~s made to pe~it conf, truc- tion cf a 6~ high fence in the front setback, Director of ~lanning Warren s~mitted a plot >lan noting the location, ~.n~ aOjacent zoning. He also noted the location of the proposed fence,. pointing out ~hat there ~s a 25' setback alo~ these lots while the others in chis area have a t5' setbaok. The applicant is proposing ~ect ~is fence at the top of his slope whidl is the reason he is questing the reduction in the setback. ~en~er Gregson asked whether these lots are served by an easement a pr~lic street. Mr. Warren stated it is an e~se~ent, not a p,~lic street. This being the time and place as advertised,, ~he public hearing opened ~ Mro Ray Crockett, the applicant, stated the reason fc~r t],~e fence ~a~ block the wind - it make~ it almost impossibl~ to enjcy ~:he u~e cf their yard witho¥~t having it fenced. They wi~h to const:uuct this the top of their slope~ if they constructed i1: on t~ setLack it would leave them 4' of area to maintain o'~tside ~:h~ Mr~ Willi~ }~o%~,ers, ].033 Oleander Avenue, sta~d he liw~s adjace~n~: this house~ He read from a letter he submit~:~) I-~) tLe Cos?~issioa ing he has his home up fcr sa!e~ and the fenc~ would di~ninish c~e of his property. It would cut off tke view h~ now Chairman Stewart explained that the appiicant ~ ~,;ould be ~,~ithin rights to build a fence this high by just movt;%g it back <,'~ He the~. asked Mr. Bowers what part of his home sides ,;ith hi~ n~} ~,~}~'bors. Bowers stated his garage is next to the neiqh~or'z house, There being no further cogent, either for or a?ainst, t%~e belting declared closed. Me~er Ad~s asked if they couldn't compromise %his a iitti,~ by the height of the fence as it nears the front :~etback Member York felt the arguments Mr. Dowers had should certainly be con- sidered. He suggested a continuance so that he could go up and per- sonally inspect the proposal from Mr. Bowers' property. Chairman Stewart conu~ented that most of the other Com~issioners visited ~his site on their field inspection. The view is down into a canyon, of which only a portion is visible. The Con~nission ~hen discussed the layout of both homes in regard to the fence and concurred ti~t the matter should be continued. MSUC (York-Guyer) Matter be continued to the meeting of July 6, 1967, ~o that the Commission can visit the site to investigate the protester's claim. SUBDIVISION - Bonita Tierra - Tentative Map Dlr~.-tor of Planning Warren submitted the tentative map of the sltbd~vi-- sion, noting the location as south of Allen School Lane and west of Ol2ay Lakes Roa.~, encompassing an area of 86 acres which will be sub- divided into 9? lots~ He then submitted another map which delineated the different size lot pz'cposed for this area and spoke of the meeting whereby prezoning w~s request, ted, but the Commission decided to leave it interim-zoned unt~ 1 · ~ ' ' ' ' suc~ time as a subd~[vlszon map Is filed. Mr. Warren indicated that they may have to ask ~: a ~_or revised map, but that the Commission s~ould give them some indLcation as to the concept of the subdivisien~ The ~ · ~ -~ ~pp~cants would have to file for a variance request also, because of tt~e proposed lot sizes~ Mr, Warren then discussed the access to tne s~bd~vzszon, noting ~here should be another access west of the school. He dis¢;usse~l the topography in the area, noting that there will be a certain ~u~oun% of grading and fill; how~%-er, the applica.~ts will be trying t~3 a~aintaia natural topography. The matter of side- w~l~= was then discussed. Mr~ Warren declared the Cor~sslon waived Bonl~a ' this requirement for '~ Bel-Azre and Bonita Verde subdivisions~ but that ~ha.s should be g.t~an more study and the Deop!e who live in thes? subdzv_szons should be questioned as to their opinioD. Director Warren then reviewed the suggested conditions of approval the staff would propose. Chai~3man Stewart asked if the Conunission could impose a condition that at the ti~e %he lot is developed and a house constructed on it~ that the slopes be graded and planted° Cit3 Attorney Lindberg stated ~e could not give an answer to this; ever, they did this on Wiudsor Park Subdivision as a result of the sloppers created by the su]~.vision. Offhand~ he would say the Co~is~, s3, en ~ou~d impose this c,_u,dlt_o~ He co~nented that this was no% a standard subdivision with the lots being developed in one main swope. Director Warren felt this matter could be pursued with th~ City Attorney ~)rior to ~pprovai of the variance, ~e~,/)er Rice ~',sk~,o. if ~h.{ .~c~..~nL was given to tha extension of 'B" Street wh~.~'n is a cul-de-?~c~ ~r. Warren stated the grade here was such that they would not want to do this. Assistant City Engineer G~s3.~y presented the reco~endations of the En~:N~erinq Di~ ..... ~h explaining each cne. He stated that on the ques- tion of the sida~alkn, ~u~ Engineering Division would recon~end that they be requi~sd - that iu was desirable to step onto some%hint when fretting out of your ~ .~a~. The~ would reduce the p~esent requirement of 5%' to 4' as tile minim~ width of walk for this subdivision~ Mr. Cc, s!ey then discussed the grading of the lots, noting some of the ~ohs were so steep that ih will be almost impossible to build on. Tha Divis~.cn of l!~ng~neering ls suggesting that the subdividers put in a pad - not the normal pa~ but just so they have a minimtm~ area to be use~ as a starher for the houses in t:hose locations. Mr. Gesley noted ct. the map the arenas of question. ~r. ~ha,~t~s Cnr~stsnsen, 233 A Str~t~ San Diego, the Engineer for the p:coject~ state~ that thei:t philosophy of design h~re was to attem~-- te adhare to %~le interNr, zoning and not create a density %oo much 9~'eater than the acre let ordinance which exists~ However~ the cost of the land, the inprovements, otc., makes it ~2fficult to hold this to exactly one acre; the !ets here range from one-third of an acre %~ell over one and one-half acre lots, which a~;erages out to a lit%lo less thar~ one acre per !ot~ Mx'. l~rlstensen then discussed in detail the cuts an~ fills ~ t. tey plan to, make. He c~mmented he agrees with Direcbor of Planning as to the hoed :for a gra~ing plan prior to approval of the final map, Providing a plan prior to the apFrova! of the tentative map would work a hardship on %he st~div~ders. As to the question c,f sidewalks, it ~as been their experience that where ~ave .'ions cne-hal~ aure and more, it ~a-*' - ~' : ~.-~;~es s be~ter lo~t~.nq subdi- ei~m..na~,_ the sidewalks and hel~s to preserYe tre rural .... o.z,,..~..r. Mr. Christensen stat~ they agree with h'~e other conditions presented ~ Chnirman Stewart q-aeshioned Mr~ ChrJstensen about the lots in the ~o ..... ]-t central portion of the subdivision - the lot:; Mr. Gesley ques.. tieh~, qr. Ch:~ristensel-, ~;tated the slope here was 4 to 1 and that ~. ~.ee~. ,.,h~=~. are lo-cs; however, if the Commission feels the?' t~..~ '.ilt go along with that recuirement. The Ce~,ission then ctiscassed the need = ~ ~o. a gradi, n~ plan. Mr~ tensen declared they will s~mit oue. · ne matter of %cceas w~%s tken discussed; Mr. C~r%stensen noted the pz'o-~ posed pedestrian walkway {~key will have going to the school. DiIector of P/~zn~ing WarreL commented on the usable lots proposed. ~{e reminded the Cemsaission they turned ~-~ ,~ ~' o this a couple years ago beck%use they we~e contemned over the ~o%ult lng that might take place,, He added that the Co}~,lss.~on should know what is b~fore them ~d understand it; they should be careful to get ~hat they want. M~:. Ces.!e]~; ...... ~. ...... e lots ~.r~ c3uestion were 2 to 1 ir~ slopes o~{I ~}c,t-=' {o i.~ L~- ~"~ ' ~d ~hat t.]._~,~,~ have no guidelines from the ~o.~s-~u ..... on wo'~18 be d. iff~cult, ~ ~t other ~' -~ .L .... ~.'a rems, meal %:haq the concept of the ~z'oposed subdi~ri~ic.n was ~{~od, Cha]>;~an Sev,~.~'~ .... slated ......... ~",.=. ~*ou!d 1~ to see a study ma~e- * on t. he ch! Idr~ '" m~ . ......... ~t= .... ~- people buvinq in this are~ az~, loohing ~'-~ ~:zual 0.rea a;%r~ t[,.a~, sidewalks would detract greatly f;tom this "~'., [-:' '~ ' t.~ ~. the :raffic in %bls aw~e is minimum exceut for ~ft~;: traffic creat6d by '~' · .... ' "" . . ~.~. sUOdlV].szon itself, si:lewa].ks %,/c.u!d be ..~¢ n~ ...... Z. disc(~ssed the sz. ze of the lots - tbs, frontage and the del,tbs and con:~rred theft ~_ study should b~: made of the need ~or side- %'a!ks. a.~io~.ed, noting that i~.%, some~ao' ,-v~,.,~ th~ subdz%' ~.~er' * ~ould be reques~ ~n,] {~ red~ct~on., of · - He fe].t thfs could be reso.~ed before the fiDal ma~? ']s subn~itted~ since the %;~divJ. der must_. ,~{.~.,.] ~ f~-~,.- a variaz>ce. ~-.r. Chr~st~:noe~ ask(::d eh~ .... Comm~su~on to grant the ~pp.,.ox.a.~.'-~ of the ....... ~?~ to a decision on sidev~a.].k~ ..... ~ ' '- ing a vori~nce. {Yo~: ,.uy~..¢ Recor,%,:e~:td approval of (.er~tati¥'e map subject to the followi2~g condition, s: .~..n,,t final approval shall be s~ject to the 9ranting of a *,-~".~..~,~ ~L~ Cc~[~uission, ~or reduction of lot '~ Prior to submi'ttinG a 33ina] map~ a I'ev~sed tentative map oha~x s~mitted, del3Jneatinq the followinq; a,, T~%e P.d~it, icnal '?oI~ertv 'ko De d=R~=~'~:~ on ~.~,,(;.h Sc~:ool dlmens~onea. The right--cf-way to be and Otay Lakes Road be ' ' - dedicated cn Otay L~es Road shall be 50 feet from center line. The right.-:~f-way to be dedicated on Alien School sb~!I be 3~ feet ~33om center ...... e,.~ at the -.~,,In ...... f U Street, c,nto Otay Lakes Road from Lot ~3 ~ 92. e, B Street shall be 60 feet in ~idth~ ............... c,.~.lon of ~ Street and A Street shall be revised so tna~c· · ~ St~eet has a b~.te~ '~ ~ approach to Allen School Lane. A31 sewer lines shall resinate with a manhole. ~ The sewe~~ at the end of B ~' .... :treet shall be extended to the t~cact ~ in,its ~ i. ~. ]2 ~oot access road shall be constructed for the maintenance of the sewer constructed in Lots 84 through 92 (~t 87 excepted) ..... =-led grading plan shall be submitted for staff approval ~rior to accept~lce of the final map by the City Council. 4 ~ trading? ," o~ individual s~tes for fha preparation of housing con- .... uct~oL :~hall be co~trolled by the City of Chula Vista, The ,,~.~zd,~r sl?,]~ stipula~ie these grading cont~?o!s in the deed restrzc ~:ions or al! lots w~t~'~in r.h!s st~dlvls~on. 5. A planting and irrigation plan shall be s'ubmitted for each lot upon application for building pelunits. ~,_tter~ ~.n~tt be obtained from the utility compe~nies eliminating the necessity of shcw~.ng rear lot easements on the final map. '/. All street improvements shall be constructed s~ject to the approval ._ of the City Engineer. This will also include fu!] ~mprovemer~ts ~7~o~ the center line of Allen School Road and Ota~, Lakes RoaJ. 8. ~leneral utility and t.:..u:e~' ~ planting ~a~c~..nts~ ~ ~ shall be shown on final, map as requi::'e,~ by the City Engineer. %ne s%:ructural street section wi~ gra~es of !0 to ' '~ percent can be constructed of asp~itic concrete but the thickness -'~' greater than ~ha% which %~ould no~ally be acceptable over the sub- ~raae~ , Pomtl~.,~d ~,~m:e'" :oncrete is the material that will be re quired ~or grades of i2% or more. The ~esi~In shall be as required by the City Engineer. i0. Adequate drainage str~.ctures shall be constructed subject to the approval., cf th~., _ C{~__y ];~n(~ineer, Two str'actures that are to spparen~ly be coDstrugte(i are th<~ge across Allen School R. oad at Lots 1 and 92~ 1~ Cul-de-sacs shall }3e constructed ac~':ordin~ to standards approved by the City Engineer. 12. Slope rights shall be obtained for the construction of B Street ~b~gre ~t te~in~3tes at. the tract limits. A bulb shall be constructed at ~he terminus of b S~reet s~Ject to the approval of the City Waive,.~ of sidewalks shall be contingent upon 'the Planning Commis- sion:s decis~(~n foi.~owin9- ~,. staff report concerning the need for -:~ide~,~alks in the Bonita area. R~,.~t%est for Modification of Conditions of Conditional Use Pe~it - 582/~84 ~' Street- R, Reeder Director of P[tanning Warren noted the location of the proposed request and stated it is a duplex for which th~, Coy~tmission and Council approved a conditional use pe~t~ft to pelm~tf.[, a m~dfcal or professional office. In ap~,ro'ving thls requesf~ a condition ,,cas place~ that the building could be used e]tJ).e~' foz professional offices c. nlV or residential pur- poses only, but n~c bot~. [?he appl.!can~n is now requesting that such ::~].xed use be aliow~:~d and [:his condition be modified accordi~,gly, ~he Commissicn should evaluate this t~'tatter and see if the condition is ~'easonable a][~~ n~uessary. Chaitm~an !~tew~:rt stated thi;3 was a multiple ~tse, and if granted~ coul{~ tkey turn down a request by someone who will want to op<~9 up an office in an apar'~m~ent b~.,it(iing~ [4em13,23 Adams ccn~ented that this partLcul, ar case doesn't seem to be particu, larly objectionable, but. that thez%a are many cases lehere it is~ and it ~akes it very difficult for the Commission since they are tryln9' to avoid this very thing. Director Warzen felt a precedent co:.l!.d be set only where the exact {:Jr-- cumstances prevail, tie ~;,'-~ferred to his report to the Commission whereby he pointed out that in th:is particular case, there have been no sub- stent:iai physical changes to the property which would affect its den!l al use and one--half of the duplex has already been rented for resi(,[ential purp;,;~ses. [4r. Warren added that the Commission sho~lld tbi~; oi) its own merits. ~,leraber York aske{R if any attempt has been mad,~: %o z'ent this out for c, ther office use., Ti'to Commission inquired ~;he~her Mr. Reader was in the audience, and it was no:zed that he ,,;as no[; present. [,~ember York coatinuec! the% all of these cases are m~ique - there were no two cases alike. P.lemba}r Gregson dec[lared thai_ a time limit should be set on it. The Conu~ission the~ discuss~d the offstreet parking available for this building. ~,lember Rice suggerste~'i t?~e matter be postpol:.ed ~nUil the next meet3ing s{, that the applicant cou3a be present. ~,ie:r~er Guyot agreed, stating the Conlmission has always taken this stan{i Melter Ad~3 felt there was no need for the [}cstponement since they had ali the facts and suggested a one year time limit be imposed, ')3he C~nmiss?~n discussed the postponement, and concurred that since the ap£~!ican~ '.~;as not pre~ent~ he shows little interest in the mattcrr an~ tl~is was nc ~eason %o postpone the ~c~atte~ or to grant ~qemL. er R~ce common, ted t~a~% the applicant was a doctor and perhaps he ~d some eme;~'g~.cy call. ~4SUC (Guyer-Ad~uus) Request for modification of condition be denied based on the following: The proposed mixed use does not provide a good living environment. 2. There was no showing of adequate parki~g for this mixed [~here has been no change of conditions in the property since the original conditions were imposed. Req~lest for [~odification o[ Conditions of Variance - 667 Third Avenue Director of Plan~ing War,er noted the locagion of the request and plained that the applicant proposed to build a dance studio with a residence cn the second fioor which required a variance; in addition~ he made plans for the construction of a 6-unit aparhaent buildin~ on the rear of this property, The applicant is now requestinq to buJ!d the co~m~]ercial building o~!y in front, and at a later date, to build a si~?le-f.~0j, ly residence in the rear of the property instead of the apa~;tme?ts. }4r~ %;arren indicated that this could be considered a :a<~}JfJcation of the variance. [~r. Tadeu~z Pieknik, 1182 Ocelot Avenue, the applicant, ~}xplained the need to cF~ange his plans - that he could not get %he necess~ry finan- cing to build {{Jlese apartments. Therefore, with the Comr~ission's pera~i.s:~ion, he would like to proceed with construction of {{he dance studio in fron!3 and a single-family residence at %he rear of the prop- erty. N{%~mber Adams dec!nred %hat this was exactly what {~he Commaission did not want. Chairman Stewart con~ented that the purpose of the ordinance prohibit- ing residential use in a commercial area is und~esirable -- it serves to weaken a ccmmercial e~nvironment. A mu!tip}e-f~nily ~se {R.-3) in rain instanc~s, on the et}set hand, is comp~tib!e but singl~- f~ily Js R}he Co~mission concurred and info,ed Mr. Pi{}knik that the variance stands as previously granted. Request f,or ~%~3p~ova] of New Bu~JaJng in Bonita Villa~te Shopping Center Director of P!a~uxing Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of th~ pro~os~d request. He described the architecture of the proposed building which h,J indicz, tad, in the opinion of the staff, would be com- patible with that in the area. A tree and the planter box in the Shopping C~-~pter would have to be removed for the construction of this bui3'~dinq which will be an ice cre~ parlor called the "Sugar Pi~". Chai~an Stewart c~uestioned ~e hours of operation. ~r. C. At~ai~ t~e ~'epresenCative of Bonita Village Shopping Center, stated the hou.r~:~ will be from 10 a.m. to 10 [~lemb~r Adams re~a'~ked that the building looks more like something that co'uld be found in a carnival. He added that it was not compatible all with the exit]ting architecture. Director Warren stated that he discussed this with the architec%~ as there was som¢~ question in the minds of the staff when they reviewed it as to its com~..atibilit~ ~ince it doesn't duplicate any of the ex- isting architecture. The architec~ explained that the roof line could be d$.fferc~nt, but the weath, ering of the sh[n~les and siding cz'aa%e a more compatible effect. Director Warren added that the reac- tion of the Core.mission illustrates his apprehension c,f being autho3~'[ze,f to simgulax'ly jud~'e the appropriateness of architecture in co,heroical ~:ones as was proposed in the new zoning ordinance. Mer~tber York su~[gest,ed ~he flags: be left off the top of the two roof tops ~ Director W~rren ind. icated that the architect fe~L these two flags tend to g~ aion~3 with the style of the roof. Member Ad~]s discussed possible changes in the a~chitecture to pron~ote compatibil~.ty wiLb that i~] the Center. Chairman Stewart questioned the signs proposed for the building. Di~ rector Warren indicated that the applicant would ha~*e to submit a vised plan and specify th~:~ si~jnage area. The only sign proposed at present is that sP~o',in sci~ematically on '~'he sketch. Chaiman S%e%~,ar~: felt %his could be left up to the Planning staff ~or approval. MSUC (York-Gregson) Appzovai of the plans w~.th the stipulation that tke two pennants as shown on the plan on top of the roof be deleted from the building; also, that final plans of the building, inc!~dinq for signs~ be s~mitted t~ the staff for approval~ The motion carried by the following vote, t~-wi%~ AYES: [.lembers Yoz'k, Gregson, Stewart and Guyer NOES: Members Rice and ~d~ns ABSENT: Membez Hyc[e ~ I, rectoz of Pl~nning W~rren submitt~d the final m~p noting the as the no~therly te~ini of Melrose and Myra Avenues, north of East J Street. Tl~e ~ ;" ' s~,~vzs~.on con~ains 62 R-.1 lots~ The staff reco~ends approval because it is in confo~2~amce with the te~!tative map and would offer two condi'Lions of aDDrova~]~ plus those of the ~lv~s].on of Engi. ~he Co~,ission ~iscussed the plantin9 r~quirement~ City Attorney Lindberg noted that this was par'~ of the overall improvement require~en'c~ Directoz Uarren '- lz~a~cated 5hat this was spelle~ o~t in the tentative m~p ,:~pprcva3 and will ho.v~ to be ~ re,.o.,,=, ef~ it goes to ~he City Council. ~-s'~. (York-Gregson) Approve, 1 of the ma)~ subject to the foliowinq corn- di ticns: The final grading and ~ ac.-uax grading shaft, le,~ve %h~ flop of at the set. back line or in back of the tine :~bown o~ lots 16, 38~ 5 and 14. ..~., m~p for !. The final mar? shall not be stzbmitted for Council approval - irrig.~ tion 'L~' .,nt ~.~ an.: planting plan for lots 50 and ~ the staff~ 3. The final map shall not be ~ ~bmitted for Co~cii action until all eo are ~ ,~ and all necessary bonds deeds~ slo?e ~ ' ~. easements,, a~ required by th~ City Engineer, ~:ave been ~o tl~e City. ,~dBD~VIoI~a ~ Chuia Vista ":a..de~ No. 3 Final Director of planning Warren submitted the final r~aD noting the as west of the proposed freeway 805 bet~,zeen Naples and Oxford Streets. Unit No. 3 is located in ~J~e middle of the tract about 320 ~eet south of Na~)les St~'eet sad contains 33 lots This unit ~ - w..L. involve a new · ~;e~'ment of ~m6:rson~ Naps amd '~ T~ erisa Way. ,,, was in conform:ante with kh~:u tentative lttal), &i':d tile staff approval subject ~:o ~-a ~ '- , ~ - ~ona.~ion imposed by the w ~ , ~m;~neez l. ng ,~u~ez-~ork) Reco~end approgat of t:le final mai? ~ubject to the fo!Iov~ing conditJ, cn: The final m~ -ha.L:, not be ~ubmitted fc:i CotmcSl actior, u!~'{:il all fees are paid and all necessary :ond. s: deeds, slope rights and ea~eit}ents, as required by the City Engineer, have be~n delivered ~co t'~e City. and the ~ar'tance., c. Lm~:, t~e l/ar3, ance ~ras ~pproved, a cerLa;~.n hullo, ed of .... =; q..***"~ were v,;,.~ andwz~_f, con'tLnu9 through the e}zd~.:z-'~ Augu?:,;, for '~,,,~zc' =~ ~'h~,5 de- :;iI,s to put up ~ ..b_~ or !l;v-~ r ..... -~ ..* · ~;~ x.s".ld like 'to :.make is 'that these ~-' ~'' ~' ~.U..!,, OUt not: tO be 5;i ~r: ba:~'~' " ~'ile ~he : - ~xgns are replaceO r:': b ,,,.,:... ,~ , ,::~'~:i.,.,, %t15 (lorilal}_~g&orl ..... *'k -,r~'t,. ~ C.'~'~.d ~ .... ~'~' ~iscus:;ed generally t:he signs ....... t~x..,_.uqhest eno '~"cy"'t ...... _ t.,=,l in v:~,-~-z,' , and in =' Pcez::-,. ,., we ere going t.c, restrict t. aom, he gug~esr.,xd io%D.,.7 ii; right. st'icY as v,.' n S,¢)ri;!::s dc,es, and -~. '~*" ' ' ' OX' m,, ¥'=': '?' "' '~ ~ _,~.a .... ~.,.. a.,.., tO lmooge al}. :*hoSe ":of~d4. t;[On~. aver~ that the Coxu is~,ion ...:x., ,~ ,,; 1:.~ ..0...,~.~ ' ;::~:v ,,. : a difficult Mr..3ohn McQuaide~ representatJ,~e of ~!umJ~le Oil Company, explained that he bas two dealers participating ~n ~his progr~. ~he signs will. have to be put where the customer will b~ able to see them; however, they do not want to flood th~ pro~rty with signs. The signs will be 3' x 5', an~i ~e signs will be t~en do~ when the promotion is over~ Mr, Warren ~iscussed the two service stations in question ~d the con- trol the Commission has over their signs. The Co~i~sion agreed that the request could be granted subject to tile signs being removed im- mediately upon expiration of the pr~otion. MS:J~ (York-~ice) Approval of the ~em[~ra~'y s~gn~ to be erecte~ at ~he se~ice stations located at 1305 Third Avenue and 495 Colorado Avenue in connection with a promotion; this p~)motional advertising to be~in June 15 through hhe end of August. The request is approved with the condition that tile managers of these two service stations call the Planning Department at the end of this period of time and verify the fact that the signs are taken down. ~p~.ration of T~rms of Commissioners Director Warren noted that the tel~s of office for Kyle Stewart and Will Hyde will expire on J~e 30. MSUC (Guyer-Rice) Reco~nlend to City Co~cil that th~e two members b~ reappointed. M~mber Guyer suggested a letter be written to Mr. Sheridan ~iegland~ University of California, for the not~le progr~ presented on Ju~%e i0, Chairman Stewart requested the Director to write this letter~ l~egional Plan Bulletins l)irector of Pkanning Warren called the Co~3aission~s attention to %he bulletin distributed to them. This was prepared by the County Plan~, ning Department ~21d deals with the prese%~'a~ion of soil resources, ~93,e9 _~qw z~{[~ Ordinance Director Warren state~ the ordinance will be ready for distribution nc later than Friday. He su~jgested ~e firsa public hearing be called fc~ Julv 24. MSUC (Guyer-Gr~9-son) A public hearing be called for Monday~ Jn!y 24~ 1967~ to consider the new proposed zoning ordin~ce~ Member York questioned ~e attendance durin~ the s~%er months. Di- rector Warren felt ~is was a 9cod point, but tgey will be ~iving the p,~!ic 30 days notice anc] will see what the reaction is. If attendance is inadequate,~ the Co~ission c~ postpone action on it. Next Meeting Date Dkrector of Planning Warren stated t~]e next meeting falls on July 3 which is the day before a holiday, and wondered if the Co~=aission waD_ted to change this to another night~- The Commission agreed since some of them indicated they would be away for the weekend. MSUC (York-Gregson) Meeting of July 3 be canceled, and the next meet- ing be schedule~ for July 6~ 1967. ADJOUR~4~T ~SUC (Rice-York) Meeting be adjourned until Thursday, July 6, 1967. Meeting adjourmed at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted,