Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1969/12/15 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA December 15, 1969 The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on the above date beginning at 7 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Guava Avenue, with the following members present: Rice, Stewart, Macevicz, Chandler, Adams and Putnam. Absent: none. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Chandler-Adams) Approval of the minutes of the meetings of November 24 and December 1, 1969, as mailed. PUBLIC HEARING - Prezoning - Property east of Hilltop High School between Windsor Park Subdivision and H Street - E-1-A to R-3 - Horton, Ramm and Whittington Director of Planning Warren submitted a location map noting the property in question, the adjacent land use and zoning. The land is presently vacant and comprises 18.35 acres zoned County E-1-A for which the applicants are requesting prezoning to R-3. Mr. Warren noted the only public access to this property as coming from Sheffield Court which stubs into the property from the south, as a result of the development of Windsor Park Subdivision. He then noted the alignment of the freeway interchange which showed that most of the northerly parcel of this property would be condemned by the Division of Highways for the H Street interchange. Configuration of the access ramps would deny any access to this property from H Street. The owners of the 3100 acres to the east are working with the Highway Division to change the location of this interchange. The staff finds that prezoning the property to R-3 at this time would be pre- mature based upon the uncertainty of future access to this proposed development. If access to this development could be obtained other than through the Windsor Park Subdivision, then. perhaps a low-density multiple-family development for a portion of this property could be considered. For these reasons, the staff is recommending that the area be prezoned R-l: the General Plan designates the area as Iow-density residential; the only access to the property from a dedicated street is through a single-family subdivision; no suitable access to the property for an R-3 zoning; until the interchange is formulated, R-3 zoning is premature. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Frank Whittington, 652 H Street, one of the applicants, referred to a copy of a report presented to the Commission concerning the condemnation of the property by the State for the interchange for which they pay the market value of the land based on the use to which it is adapted and for which it is available. -2- 12/15/69 Mr. Whittington declared they would like to close Sheffield Street at this point, and if access to the property cannot be obtained by H Street, then the probability remains that the State would provide access via "I" Street. There will be a great amount of fill here, and the State wants to use this dirt. They have purchased 4 acres of land from the upper piece of property for this right-of-way. The development will front on H Street, and the applicants believe there is ample justification for the R-3 zoning. Director Warren noted a petition of protest received signed by 74 residents representing 43 properties, and a letter of protest from Mr. and Mrs. Edmunds of 618 Sheffield Court. Mr. Art Landman, 616 Sheffield Court, spoke in opposition to the request stating (1) the staff's recommendation for R-1 prezoning was a wise one and in the best interest of the community as a whole; (2) as a result of approving the high density use, the developers would open up Sheffield Court as access to the development; (3) the approval of the request would only better the investor and not the community as a whole; (4) R-3 would degrade the area. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission discussed the proposal and concurred that it would be premature to approve the R-3 zoning at this time and there was little justification for R-3 presented. Member Macevicz stated he is abstaining from the hearing since the applicant is on the school board. Member Stewart commented on the fact that the applicant is willing to close Sheffield Court; however, our ordinance does not allow conditions to be imposed on a zone change. He does not question the good faith of the applicant, but there is no legal way the Commission can hold them to this statement. City Attorney Lindberg indicated this condition could be made a part of a precise plan. In the plan the Commission could delineate the proper access to the development. MSUC (Chandler-Rice with Member Macevicz abstaining) RESOLUTION NO. 605 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to City Council Prezoning to R-1 of that Property East of Hilltop High School between Windsor Park Subdivision and H Street Findings be as follows: a. The existing General Plan designates the property as low density residential, while the proposed revision to the Plan classifies the area as medium density residential, neither of which conform to R-3 zoning. b. The only access to the property from a dedicated street is through a single family subdivision. -3- 12/15/69 c. The tentative design of the H Street interchange denies H Street access to the property. Without suitable access to the property, R-3 zoning would impose unreasonable traffic volumes on Sheffield Court. d. Until the configuration of the interchange is finally formulated, rezoning to R~ is premature and even with better access the need or desir- ability of R-3 zoning was not demonstrated by the applicant. PUBLIC HEARING (continued) - PrezoninQ - Property along the north side of Orange Avenue~ approximatel~ 600' west of Melrose Avenue from "A" to C-C (10.2 acres) and alon9 the south side to R-3 (4.8 acres) - Princess Park Estates, Inc. Director of Planning Warren stated this was a continued hearing, and briefly reviewed the request indicating that this was a request for prezoning to R-3 of 4.8 acres and to C-C of 10.2 acres of vacant land currently zoned "A" in the County. Certain questions were raised at the last hearing (November 24, 1969) and the staff has met with the applicant in order to resolve some of these. Mr. Warren pointed out the topography in the area which he said was rather high. There will be a great amount of grading done which will create pads higher in elevation: the proposed new commercial area will be higher than the existing commercial and the proposed R-3 property will be approxi- mately 10' - 12' above the level of the adjoining R-1 development. The staff is still of the opinion that no additional commercial property is needed for this area with the exception of a small pie-shaped piece of additional commercial which the developer needs to accomplish the development plan he presented. The staff recommends that this 1.14 acres be prezoned C-N. As to the request for R-3 zoning, there is concern on the part of the staff that approval would start a trend for the approximate 100 acres of vacant land to the west. Director Warren added that future zone changes should be based on a demonstrated need, and he can see no reason why it cannot be developed R-1. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Eugene Freeland, Attorney representing the applicants, gave the members of the Commission a copy of a topography and elevation plan. He cited the net figures for the acreage involved in the request, and showed a plan to create additional single-family lots around Malta Avenue and Sandstone Street, thus closing off these two streets to the proposed R-3 development. The developer is willing to accept R-3-G zoning. He declared that people buying into this area will be informed of the pending R-3 development. Mr. Freeland then discussed the need for additional commercial zoning stating there was justif- ication for the request as the applicants have leases for tenants for this center. He added that he has two letters of intent--one from a large drug store chain and one from a bank, who have expressed interest in coming into this area, but he cannot reveal the names at this time. City Attorney Lindberg stated anything submitted at a public hearing is to be made part of the record. Mr. Freeland indicated he did not have authority to reveal the names of the institutions at this time. -4- 12/15/69 Acting Chairman Rice questioned the need for raising the elevation of the proposed R-3 zoned property. Mr. Freeland remarked it was done chiefly for proper drainage, removing the dirt from the other areas and putting it here. Mr. William Nemour, Executive Vice-President of Princess Park Estates, Inc., stated he had obtained from the City of Chula Vista the specific alignment and elevations of Orange Avenue and he explained why the grading should occur as proposed. Mr. Rodney G. Seiler, 271 Sandstone Street, referred to the petition submitted at the last meeting. He stated he is concerned about the safety of the people living in the R-3 area as they may have to back out onto Orange Avenue which is a heavily traveled street. He added that the residents in this area purchased their homes in an R-1 area and it should remain that way, and that R-3 develop- ments should go in an area that is undeveloped so that the people buying into the area will know what they are buying next to. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Macevicz commented that the applicants presented a good case; however, he would go along with the staff's recommendation that just the 1.14 sliver of land be prezoned C-N in order to allow them to complete their shopping center plans, and at some future date, the Commission can consider further zoning for the area. Director Warren asked for the Commission's consideration on this matter; are they still talking about the need to fulfill a neighborhood shopping center or something more. If they are considering ultimately something more than that, then perhaps the applicant should be given his zoning. Member Stewart indicated the Commission, in the planning of the 805 Freeway here, must try to foresee the needs for the area for the next 5 or 10 years from now, so that the developer can make his future plans. If a developer holds commercial land and does nothing with it, he, himself, will get the zoning changed on it as it is on the tax rolls as commercially zoned land. Mr. Stewart added that he feels it would not be out of line to let them have the zoning they want. Member Stewart brought out another point which he felt shouldn't be the concern of the Commission, but that was the fact that zoning land commercial when it is not needed as such puts it in a category whereby it could very well be used for speculative purposes. City Attorney Lindberg stated they should be reminded that one of the purposes of including within the zoning ordinance the conditioning of zoning based upon a precise plan places it in the position whereby the Commission may feel it is premature--they are not certain as to the specifics of the use. However, by saying it will be rezoned subject to the approval of a precise plan, they limit the prospects of speculation from one owner to the other, without any real concept of use and it still leaves the land free to be developed under the existing zoning, if the commercial aspect doesn't come to pass within a reasonable -5- 12/15/69 length of time. Director Warren questioned what classification the property would have in the interim period should the Commission prezone the property to commercial based on a precise plan. City Attorney Lindberg declared it could be brought in as R-1 to become commercial in the event the precise plan is approved. The prezoning becomes effective upon annexation. Mr. Freeland remarked that the applicatns would be interested in this proposal; however, until discussed fully with them, he is not sure if it will be accepted. The Commission discussed C-N zoning as compared to C-C. City Attorney Lindberg explained that in a C-N zone, the land ranges from 3 to 8 acres which must be accepted as a guide for that general purpose. In the event the Commission exceeds this maximum, they should then give consideration to a different zone. Two separate resolutions would be made up: one for the prezoning and one for the rezoning; both can be done in one package based upon the filing of a precise plan. Director Warren indicated he is not in a position at this time to make any fur- ther recommendations on this and perhaps a continuance would be in order. He would like to talk to the applicants about C-N versus C-C zoning if the Commis- sion is inclined to expand this zoning. They want to be sure it doesn't become something more than it should. Mr. Nemour stated they are planning to submit for final plan check next week a 50,000 square foot shopping center that will be constructed as soon as plans are approved. Grading on the property will take place between January 15 and February 1, 1970. City Attorney Lindberg explained the time procedure involved in Planning Commission and City Council hearings--after the second reading by the Council, the ordinance becomes effective in 30 days. After this period of time, the applicant can then begin his construction. A suggestion was made to the Commission by the Associate Planner that they approve the small triangle of land to C-N which is what the applicants stated they need immediately to fulfill the development plans for the shopping center. The Commission concurred. The Commission discussed the R-3 prezoning portion of the request. Member Stewart stated he is torn between the comments of the staff and the fact that a small amount of R-3 can be accepted in R-1 residential areas. If it is agreed by the Commission that they will grant this based on a precise plan, showing that the R-1 development will be placed in the area delineated by the applicant on the plot plan, and that individual houses do not have access onto Orange Avenue, he would be willing to consider this. -6- 12/15/69 Mr. Freeland stated it was not their intent that anyone in the proposed development would have to back out onto Orange Avenue. He added that they accept this condition. Acting Chairman Rice reiterated that he felt the pad should not be elevated to this extent. Mr. Nemour stated it will be 12 feet higher than the single-family residential development adjacent to it, and they feel it would act as a buffer. Director Warren commented that he hoped this point would be left flexible; the staff is not sure they want to see a 12' slope created unnecessarily in some- one's back yard. The Commission expressed concern about setting a precedent in approving this R-3 zoning. Acting Chairman Rice felt the circumstances were different in this case, and it would not set any trend for similar future requests. Mr. Seiler questioned the number of stories this would be limited to. The Acting Chairman explained it could possibly go to 3 stories--a single- family residential home is allowed two stories. The Commission discussed granting the request and a time limit involved. City Attorney Lindberg remarked that it could be conditioned upon the filing of a subdivision map within a period of two years. This map can show the exact location of the R-3 and R-1 proposed land. Director Warren discussed the question of the height of the building. He indicated it could go three stories but with the density allowed under the R-3-G zoning, it would be improbable that the applicants would go this high. The Zoning Ordinance gives the staff architectural and site plan control, so control can be accomplished without a precise plan. If the Commission desires they can impose the "S" Modifying District which limits the height of a building to two stories. MSUC (Stewart-Chandler)-Commercial MSUC (Putnam-Adams)-R-3 & R-1 RESOLUTION NO. 606 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to City Council Prezoning 1.14 acres of property along the North Side of Orange Avenue, west of Melrose Avenue, from "A" to C-N and 4.8 acres along the South Side of Orange Avenue to R-3-G-S and R-1 Findings be as follows: a. A plan has been submitted to the Commission indicating that this precise acreage for commercial zoning is needed for the development of the buildings required for this neighborhood shopping center. b. The General Plan provides for adequate high density multi-family areas throughout the planning area. A lower density of development, as indicated on the Plan and recommended for approval of this area, would be more compatible with this surrounding area. -7- 12/15/69 Member Chandler remarked that if it was to have been wholly R-3 zoning, he would have voted against it; however, having a density imposed and a two-story limit, he would go along with it. MSUC (Stewart-Putnam) Action on the remainder portion of the applicant's request for commercia zoning be postponed until the meeting of January 5, 1970 and the staff be directed to bring back a proposed ordinance and an agreement with the applicant at that time for action by the Planning Commission. PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) - Rezonin9 - Property at the northwest corner of Melrose and Orange Avenues from C-N to C-C - Princess Park Estates, Inc. Director of Planning Warren noted the location of the property in question on the plot plan and remarked that if the Commission and City Council will be considering rezoning to C-C for this adjacent property, then it would be appro- priate to rezone the existing C-N zoned property to C-C. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Eugene Freeland, Attorney representing the applicants, stated they will agree to a continuance on this item along with the prezoning. He indicated there would be no reason to change this zoning from C-N to C-C unless the balance of the property held the same zoning. Acting Chairman Rice questioned whether the previously recommended prezoning for the small triangle-shaped parcel could be brought back together as one package. City Attorney Lindberg stated this could be done as separate ordinances, and the entire thing could either come out as C-N zone including the triangle, and no other rezoning, or the whole thing can be C-C subject to a precise plan. MSUC (Putnam-Chandler) The public hearing be continued until the meeting of January 5, 1970. PUBLIC HEARING - Proposed amendment to Zonin~ Ordinance relatin~ to setbacks alon9 major and collector streets Associate Planner Manganelli stated this was initiated by the Planning Commission at the last meeting. It concerns the 25' front yard on property zoned R-3 which fronts on major and secondary streets, as designated on the General Plan. As advertised, the Commission will consider 15' front yard. For visual effects, the staff believes that the 25' is appropriate, at least for two-story structures; the extra 10' can be used for parking, patios, or one-story portions of structures, with the remaining 15' retained for screening and landscaping. Mr. Manganelli then read the exact wording of the proposed ordinance. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Eugene York, 280 K Street, questioned the staff's justification of having this greater distance (25') on major streets. -8- 12/15/69 Director of Planning Warren explained that in the discussion on the new zoning ordinance, the Commission determined that 15' setback on new R-3 developments was adequate to preserve the light, air, and open space on secondary streets. When discussion was held on the major streets, the Commission concluded this should be 25' because of the high density developments along this street, and to have better visual effects, etc. The staff is now suggesting that a portion of this 25' should become usable. Mr. York asked what the guideline was for the setback in the R-1 zone along a major or collector street. Mr. Warren indicated that this varies between 15', 20' and 25'. Where there is a straight-in garage, it is 20'. The Commission must be aware that typically you have a much lower intensity of land use here. Mr. York then questioned the right-of-way width for these streets. Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, stated it was 100' for a major street and 85' for a secondary street. Many streets in the center city exist at 80'. Mr. York then remarked that it was his understanding that parking and loading would be permissible in this 10' zone. Mr. York felt this recommended 25' setback along major streets was discriminatory. He added that a 2-story house was allowed in the R-1 zone with a 15' setback, and a better compromise here would be to limit the height of a building to two stories. Mr. York further added that it was displeasing to allow parking in this 10' front setback and that it was almost impossible for any R-3 development to use this 10' for parking be- cause of the access. Mr. Manganelli indicated that one of the reasons for including parking within the 10' is to encourage the building to be placed even further back than the 25' setback. A parking area here can be effectively screened by landscaping. Generally, the people who live in the front units will park in the street, rather than at the rear of the units. Director Warren discussed the request explaining that the 25' setback would create the feeling of open space in these areas of high-density. Mr. York declared that regardless of what action the Commission takes at this meeting, he hopes they will eliminate the allowance of parking in this front setback. The major streets are designed primarily with the large width in order to accommodate parking on both sides of the street, and the people parking in the street are taxpayers--people paying for these streets. It makes no difference whether they are the people living in the apartments or just people at large, they have the right to park in these streets. It is, functionally, a design of the development of the apartment complex--there will be bad and good designs with parking adequately provided for. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. -9- 12/15/69 Member Adams discussed other developments in the City whereby parking is allowed in the front setback, and commented that if they can use this 10' in front and work out a good design, there is nothing wrong with it. Acting Chairman Rice remarked that he agreed with Mr. York about the parking in the front--it should be avoided unless it can be effectively screened. Member Stewart questioned what the setback would be for an apartment develop- ment if other buildings in the area have 15' setbacks. Mr. Warren stated this is taken care of in the new ordinance. He then drew a small diagram indicating how parking could be accomplished in this 10' setback area. Mr. York asked if it wouldn't be more feasible to put a building in this 10' setback instead of the parking. Mr. Warren felt they would be defeating the purpose, if they allowed that. The Commission agreed that the 25' setback as modified was a good one, except for the parking of vehicles in front, and that this provision should be eliminated. MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) Resolution of the City Planning Commission RESOLUTION NO. 607 Recommending to City Council an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to Setbacks along Major and Collector Streets Findings be as follows: a. For visual effect on arterials and to create a more open feeling in areas of high density residential development, the 25' yard is appropriate, at least for two-story structures. b. The additional 10' should be available for use for fenced patios or one- story portions of structures with the remaining 15' retained for screening and landscaping. This would promote varied-level building elevations; i.e., combinations of one and two or more story elevations and would promote less stereotyped apartment buildings in the City. PUBLIC HEARING - (Continued) Setback Changes - F Street~ West of Broadway - Commission initiated Associate Planner Manganelli submitted a plot plan noting the existing setbacks in this area. The item was continued from the last meeting for further staff study. The recommendation of the staff is to have the setbacks established in the Zoning Ordinance for the individual zones involved, removing the subject area from the Building Line Map. There will still be some non-conforming uses along this street. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was reopened. There being no comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. -10- 12/15/69 MSUC (Adams-Macevicz) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending RESOLUTION NO. 608 to City Council Setback Changes for F Street, West of Broadway Findings be as follows: a. This method of establishing required front yards will assist in negating the confusion regarding the multiplicity of yard requirements on this portion of F Street. b. A uniformity of minimum front yard requirements in the individual zones within the subject area will be created. PUBLIC HEARING - Variance - 753 First Avenue - Request to create two parcels without required street frontage - Mrs. N. Butterfield Director of Planning Warren submitted a location map noting the property in question, the adjacent land use and zoning. He explained that the applicant proposes to create three lots, two of the lots having frontage on an easement. There is a deed requirement for a 25' access to Parcel "B" and to the proposed park site which is owned by the City. There is some question as to when this park will be developed. Mr. Warren noted the size of the lots that will be created out of this parcel, and commented that the only way the applicant has to develop the lots is through the variance procedure. The staff is recommending approval of the request based on the condition that a 15' wide access road from First Avenue be built to parcel "A" and then east to parcel "B". However, this improvement be deferred until such time as the City is either ready to pave or participate in the paving of this easement for their access to the park. The applicant has asked that the requirement for paving this easement be deferred and that it be an obligation of the City. The applicant would then pave his own driveway and that going to parcel "B". The staff would like to see some agreement prepared that would assure that this paving will take place. Member Stewart questioned what would happen in extremely wet weather, if this easement will not be paved and emergency vehicles must get down there. Director Warren indicated that perhaps a temporary paving could be approved. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. D. Butterfield, representing his mother, commented that there is an existing easement on the premises now which has been used by fire trucks in the past. They are asking that this access road be allowed to remain, in lieu of the easement road. The Commission discussed continuing this matter for further staff study. Director Warren asked for an opinion from the Commission as to what route they would like to take on this, so the staff can work it out. City Attorney Lindberg suggested the Commission advise the staff to prepare an agreement that would go before the Council for approval. -ll- 12/15/69 The Commission questioned the time element for the proposed park development. Director Warren said he talked to the Director of Parks & Recreation and was told there were no immediate plans for the park development. The City purchased this particular land from the applicant for access to the park and should pave it, one way or another, whether or not these lots are developed. The applicant intends to make use of the easement for the new lots. Acting Chairman Rice asked if there wasn't a City policy that required sharing in the cost of paving. Assistant City Engineer Gesley questioned the Director's statement that the City should pave it, one way or another. The City could develop the park without this particular access. Also, if this easement is to be used for vehicular access, it should not have temporary paving. Director Warren commented that Mr. Jasinek, Director of Parks & Recreation, has indicated to him that an access road will be made here to the proposed park. The City will use it for this purpose and should pave it for such use. Member Stewart asked the City Attorney if the City could reimburse Mr. Butter- field for the paving, if he is required to put it in at this time. Mr. Lindberg commented that this situation is different from a standard street frontage improvement. There you require each property owner to share in the paving. Here you are talking about an access that will serve primarily the City. He agrees with Mr. Gesley in that it will be some time before the City gets ready to use this access, and in the course of time, something may happen that would negate the City's intention to use the access at all. Member Stewart indicated he would like to see at least a 15' width of this easement paved, and that the applicant put in this improvement, if the City will reimburse him for it at the time they intend to use it for access to the park. Director Warren declared this would have to be a decision of the Council. Mr. Gesley noted the major drainage channel running through this property and commented that it may be too costly for the City to bring this access off of First Avenue; they may just have an access off Hilltop Drive. The Commission discussed the possibility of approving the variance based upon a satisfactory agreement concerning the access. Mr. Butterfield stated that his mother was given this access from the City. Mr. Lindberg explained that a right of access was reserved for the applicant; however, the route was not prescribed. Mr. Gordon Campbell, 87 Millan Court, asked that approval of the variance be contingent upon permanent paving of the easement. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. -12- 12/15/69 The Commission concurred that a continuation of this matter was in order and an agreement should be drafted. MSUC (Adams-Chandler) Continuance of the action on this matter to the meeting of January 5, 1970, and the staff be directed to meet with the City Attorney and draw up an agreement relating to the paving of the easement. This agreement to be brought back to the Commission at their meeting of January 5, 1970 for approval. PUBLIC HEARING - Conditional Use Permit - 277 Broadway - Request for used clothin~ furniture, and appliance store - National Society of the Volunteers of America Director of Planning Warren submitted a location map noting the property in question, the adjacent land use and zoning. The zoning ordinance specifies that a used clothing store may be approved subject to a conditional use permit. The staff is recommending approval of this use at this location with the exception of the outdoor sales of used merchandise, primarily because of the multiple family development to the east and the lack of a front yard setback. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Speaking in opposition to the request were: D. M. Sevenkar, owner of the Aamco Transmission, 281 Broadway, and Mr. Walter Ford, Midas Muffler Shop, 265 Broad- way. They questioned the fact there is no offstreet parking and customers would be utilizing their parking areas; (2) they do not want this particular kind of business going in next to them; (3) no facilities on the premises to provide for parking for their customers; (4) they talked to the gentleman that owns this property and discussed their feelings with him, and he indicated he would rent to whomever he pleased. Mr. Eugene York, 280 K Street, asked if the Broadway Association was notified of this application. Mr. Warren stated they were not, and if there is a sincere effort to upgrade the businesses along this street, then this Association should be notified. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Macevicz asked what the parking regulations were for this type of business. Director Warren stated it would come under a retail use which is spelled out in the ordinance; however, many of the businesses along this street do not meet this requirement. It was noted that the applicant was not present at the meeting. Member Stewart questioned the desirability of allowing this type of use along Broadway since they are making a determined effort to upgrade their area. Director Warren remarked that the staff will investigate the parking situation for this use. -13- 12/15/69 MSUC (Adams-Macevicz) Continue the public hearing on this matter to the meeting of January 5, 1970, and ask the applicant or his representative to be present. The staff is directed to meet with the applicant and discuss the problem of off- street parking. PUBLIC HEARING - Proposed revisions to the Chula Vista General Plan Director of Planning Warren, noting the lack of people in attendance, asked for a continuance of this hearing, in order to get more people to come in. The Commission discussed setting this item up as a special meeting and agreed to set it for the second Monday in January. MSUC (Chandler-Putnam) Public hearing be deferred to a special meeting of January 12, 1970. ~o~ncil Referral - RezoninQ of propert~ east of Nacion, north of Telegraph Can~on Road Director of Planning Warren explained that this item was referred back to the Commission from the Council for a study into the feasibility and desirability of rezoning this area C-V (visitor-commercial). The Commission had previously recommended C-N zoning for this area. The Council can consider C-V zoning for this property without having to hold another public hearing because the zoning is equally restrictive, even though not comparable to the C-N. A use permitted in the C-V zone is a motel which can be more compatible with the surrounding area than those uses permitted in the C-N zone. The applicant has expressed his willingness to accept the C-V zone. Member Stewart remarked that he is in favor of approving the C-V zone, in view of the fact that the applicant has indicated his willingness to accept it. Acting Chairman Rice felt C-N zoning was much more appropriate for the area. Member Macevicz agreed. Director Warren commented that between these two uses, C-V zoning would generate less traffic to the adjacent area. Member Stewart remarked that C-V is a much better zone for the property than R-3 and would generate a great deal less traffic. If denied commercial zoning here, they will be requesting the R-3 zoning. MSC (Stewart-Adams) Recommend to the City Council the zoning for the area be C-V (visitor-commercial) in lieu of the previously recommended C-N zone. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Stewart, Adams, Rice, Putnam, and Macevicz NOES: Member Chandler ABSENT: None -14- 12/15/69 Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) Leslie Rice be nominated for Chairman. MSUC (Stewart-Chandler) Nominations be closed and a unanimous ballot be cast for Mr. Rice. iqSUC (Putnam-Adams) ~le Stewart be nominated for Vice-Chairman. MSUC (Chandler-Putnam) Nominations be closed and a unanimous ballot be cast for Kyle Stewart. Written Communications A letter was read from Mr. A. Martin asking Commission consideration of operating a truck terminal on Trousdale Street in the Sweetwater Valley Industrial Park. Director of Planning Warren stated he was not prepared to make a recommendation on this matter at this time. In the new zoning ordinance, the "M" zone was substituted for the I-R zone and the requirements and uses differ in some respects. He added he would like time to investigate this request. Member Stewart asked if this property was in the flood channel, which would make the operation more restrictive. MSUC (Stewart-Chandler) This matter be continued to the meeting of January 5, 1970 and the staff be directed to meet with the applicant to explore this matter further. League of California Cities Dinner Meetin~ Director of Planning Warren asked for reservations from the Commission for the dinner meeting to be held on December 18, 1969 at the Sands Hotel, Kearney Mesa Road, San Diego. No reservations were made for this meeting. Palm Homes Construction Member Macevicz questioned the office being constructed for Palm Homes in a residential area on J Street and Corte Maria. Zoning Enforcement Officer Hodge stated he investigated this. This is an R-1 area and a single-family residential home is being constructed here. The only thing the contractors have up here is a sign denoting their construction, which is allowed during a construction period. H Street Construction Assistant City Engineer Gesley invited the Commission to view the finished construction on H Street between First and Third Avenues, noticing particularly the lack of telephone poles in the area, because of the underground utilities. -15- 12/15/69 ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Chandler-Putnam) Meeting be adjourned sine die. The meeting adjourned at ll:15 p.m. Res..xpectfully submitted, ,,.2ennie M. Fulasz ~Secretary