Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1969/08/18 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA August 18, 1969 The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California, was held on the above date with the following members present: Rice, Macevicz, Stewart, Chandler, Adams, and Putnam. Absent: (with previous notification) Chairman Hyde. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, Zoning Enforcement Officer Hodge, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. In the absence of Chairman Hyde, Vice-Chairman Rice presided over the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Macevicz-Putnam) Approval of the minutes of the meetings of July 28 and August 4, 1969 as mailed to the Commission. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - 389 East Millan Court - Request to increase the height of a fence in the front yard area from 3 1/2' to 6' R. Rentschler Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the property in question, the adjacent land use and zoning. The lot is situated on the northeast corner of Nacion Avenue and East Millan Court with the house facing Millan Court. There is a slope from the sidewalk to the rear yard, and the applicant is requesting permission to construct a 6' high fence on the property line to insure some privacy. If he adhered to the setback line, the fence would have to be erected in the middle of the slope. The staff is recommending approval of the request asking that the materials and design of the fence be approved by the staff, and the area between the sidewalks and fence be landscaped and maintained. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared opened. Mr. R. Rentschler, the applicant, stated he plans to put up a solid cedar fence. He commented that there is ice plant on the property now, and he could plant oleander shrubs in this 2' area, if the Commission desires. Chairman pro tempore Rice informed the applicant that this would have to be approved by the Planning staff. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams suggested that if the proposed fence is to have any framework, this framework should not be on the side facing the street. MSUC (Putnam-Chandler) Approval of the variance request subject to the following conditions: 1. The materials and design of the fence shall be approved by the Planning staff prior to construction. If a wooden fence is used that requires a framework, that framework shall not face onto the street. -2- 8/18/69 2. Immediately upon completion of construction, the area between the sidewalks and fence shall be landscaped as approved by the staff and shall be permanently maintained. Findings be as follows: a. That the strict application of the zoning regulations or requirements would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the regulations. The intent of the regulation was to allow sight distance for intersections and driveways which will not be affected by this construction. b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone or neighborhood. The construction of a 6 foot high fence would afford the applicant privacy for the rear yard. The side and rear yard slope towards the lot preventing a 3~ foot high fence from serving any useful purpose. 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 neigh- borhood in which the property is located. The fence will not be a detriment to motorists since it will be located approximately 68 feet from the intersection. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan will not be affected. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - 1187 Napa Avenue - Request for reduction of front yard from 10' to 6'6" - F. Adrian Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the property in question, and the proposed location of the second story addition to the dwelling. This addition would project 3'6" into the required 10' front yard, and would contain 756 square feet, consisting of a recreation room, two bedrooms and a bath. Mr. Warren discussed a similar variance recently granted by the Commission for which justification was found; however, the staff could find no justification for granting this particular variance-- the second story would place the structure ll~' from the sidewalk and 6~' from the property line; the minimum setback for front yards in the R-1 zone is 15'. For these reasons, the staff is recommending denial of the request. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. -3- 8/18/6g Mr. F. Adrian, the applicant, declared the need for this addition is important because he has four children. He noted the easements along the sides of the property and the steep slope in the back; for this reason, he has to go to a second story addition. Chairman pro tem Rice questioned the applicant about the difference of cantilevering over the front which would serve two purposes: it would shield the porch and it would provide an enclosure overhead porchway between the front door and garage. Mr. Adrian explained the cost would be prohibitive because of the reinforcing he would have to do to the garage. He wouldn't want the addition to extend in the rear yard area as it would deprive the children of play area. Member Stewart maintained that a hardship has to apply to the lot rather than to a house--the land use is controlled by ordinance, and this is not a question of the house. He can see no hardship connected with the lot. MSUC (Macevicz-Adams) Denial of the request for the following reasons: a. Strict application of the ordinance would allow the applicant to construct a 683 sq. ft. addition using the same basic construction proposed. b. The exceptional circumstances stated in the application are not unique to this property, but rather apply to all the parcels in the subdivision. c. This variance would be detrimental in allowing the applicant a setback not enjoyed by all. The applicant was advised of his right to appeal this decision to the City Council wi thin 10 days. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING - Attachment of the "D" Design Control Modif~in9 District to the Civic Center area Director of Planning Warren stated this was a new hearing, even though it was a continuation of a previous hearing. The Commission has stated there should be some control over the design of this area in the case of future development. Mr. Warren submitted a plot plan noting the boundaries of the area in question. He then reviewed the standards suggested for adoption along with this "D" zone, and emphasized that the addition of the "D" zone in no way changes the underlying zoning. The purpose of attaching the "D" zone with these standards would give the developers more flexibility in their plans. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mrs. Mildred Austin, owner of property at the corner of Davidson and Garrett (55 Garrett Ave.) questioned the zoning of this property. Mr. Warren stated it was C-T (Commercial-Thoroughfare). Mrs. Austin then asked what the future zoning would be for the property north of Garrett up to Davidson. At this point, Mr. Warren commented, it would be R-3; there are no plans at this time to recommend any other type of zoning for this property. -4- 8/18/69 Mr. William Auringer, owner of the property at the corner of Garrett and Davidson questioned the status of his property. Mr. Warren explained that the use of his property does not change with the "D" zone attachment--it would only in the event of a major remodeling job on his home, or if he sold it for some other use. Mr. Evert Ross, 239 Fig, owner of the parcel at the northwest corner of Fig and Davidson, a vacant parcel, stated he has plans to build on this corner but if he had to comply with the provisions of this ordinance, the cost would be too prohibitive. Mr. Peter Reuter, 247 Guava Avenue, questioned the term "extensive remodeling." Director Warren explained this stating that just a room addition to a dwelling would not be required to adhere to Spanish architecture, unless the house itself is. An extensive remodeling would be if the property owner changed the entire whole facade of the house. Mrs. Marjorie Miles, 44 E1 Capitan, owner of the property at the northeast corner of Fourth and Center Street, said she felt the "D" zone attachment was a good one for the area immediately adjacent to the Civic Center complex; however, it is penalizing the owners of properties outside this perimeter. Director Warren explained that Mrs. Miles' property would not be required to have the strict Spanish Mission type architecture, but would be required to use the materials for the Spanish influence. City Attorney Lindberg remarked that this proposal gives a great deal of flexibility to the buildings not in the immediate Civic Center complex itself. Many of these buildings could be modified to the Spanish influence with little expense to the owners. Mr. K. D. Fry, representing San Diego Arizona and Eastern Railroad stated he had no objection to the rezoning in view of the fact that they are only required to use materials which would give them a Spanish influence. Mr. W. D. Lankford, 348 Minot, owner of property at the northwest corner of Glover and Davidson Streets on which he has an apartment complex, stated that he plans to put in an additional apartment there and would prefer not to have to go to the Spanish influence. Director Warren declared the staff would have to go out and examine the existing apartment buildings and determine what should be done. City Attorney Lindberg explained that where they are dealing with a complex of existing buildings, it is not going to be feasible to attempt to impose the Spanish Mission architecture on a part of it. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Stewart felt the residential uses should be excluded from this "D" attachment and should remodel their homes in accordance with the surrounding development. However, if it is going to commercial use, then it should adhere to the Spanish design. -5- 8/18/69 Member Adams said he agreed with this insofar as the single-family homes were concerned; however, he feels the multiple-family dwellings should comply. Chairman pro tem Rice disagreed claiming all remodeling and new structures should comply; if they exclude residential, then the Commission will have little or no control over the area. Member Putnam agreed, adding the plan was an excellent one and the Commission should adopt it as is. RESOLUTION NO. 588 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending MSUC (Adams-Putnam) to the City Council the Adoption of the "D" Design Control Modifying District to the Civic Center area. Guidelines to be as follows: a. New construction or substantial remodeling immediately adjacent to or fronting the Civic Center buildings shall, to the extent feasible, duplicate the Spanish Mission architecture of the existing and proposed Civic Center buildings. b. Landscaping shall be generous and shall consist of plant materials consistent with the Mediterranean Area planting associated with the Spanish Mission development, including the use of Quocas Palms. c. Those other properties within the District, but not immediately adjacent to the Civic Center site need not duplicate the Spanish Mission architecture, but shall utilize duplicate materials in a manner which would be harmonious and compatible with the design established by the adopted Civic Center Master Plan prepared by the firm of Knight and Gladieux. d. Depending upon the type of building involved or location of the site, if the use of the foregoing standards is determined by the Planning Commission to be impractical, alternate forms of architecture and materials will be considered. Request for approval of banner signs - 215 Woodlawn Avenue - CountS Properties Director of Planning Warren showed the Commission some photographs taken of the existing signs on the premises. The owner of this car wash is requesting permis- sion to locate additional banner signs on his site. He claims he needs these signs to inform the people of the required clearance and of the fact that he is open 24 hours a day. Mr. Warren explained that when approval of a conditional use permit was given for this car wash, one condition was that all signs would require staff approval and would have to be attached to the building. The staff is asking that these illegal banner signs be removed and the applicant instructed to submit designs for additional signs for staff approval. Mr. Ferguson, 285 Moss Street, and owner of the car wash, stated that one of the signs has already been taken down, by a truck passing under it, which clearly indicates the necessity of having the sign. He should have a sign that is flexible, rather than one attached to the building. -6- 8/18/69 Director Warren discussed signs in car washes in general, and commented that the point is to make the site as uncluttered as possible and to blend in with the shopping center. Temporary banners blowing in the wind cannot be the only way of doing this. Mr. Ferguson related his plans for a permanent sign which he stated will be of aluminum construction, solid white, 18" high. There is a clearance bar standard there now, and a solid bar at the entrance which is flexible and cannot damage any cars. Mr. Ferguson discussed the many drivers who drive around the clearance sign rather than under it, and in many cases, will ruin the car wash equipment. Director Warren contended that the staff recognizes the need for a clearance bar but not for cloth banners. The Commission discussed the applicant's proposal of putting in the 18" aluminum sign. Member Stewart objected to the large sign indicating there was no need for it--that the applicant could use a clearance sign such as those posted on bridges. Chairman pro tempore Rice suggested the matter be continued to afford the members of the Commission to personally inspect the site. Mr. Ferguson asked that he be informed of the Commission's visit to the site so he may be present. MSUC (Stewart-Chandler) Matter be continued to the meeting of September 3, 1969. Request for approval of sign in C-C-D zone - 33 Third Avenue - Hart & Sons Director of Planning Warren submitted a sketch of the proposed sign and the way the applicant desires to locate it on the roof of his building. The sign is 4' x 10', red, white and blue to be located on top of the roof, perpendicular to Third Avenue. The building once housed the Chula Vista Florist Shop. The staff feels it would be an inappropriate sign for the building, especially the say they plan to mount it. Since the building is clearly visible to all vehicles traveling in either direction on Third Avenue, the staff is recommending that a new design be submitted for approval which would be either (1) a sign measuring 2' x 25', attached to the fascia, facing Third Avenue, or (2) a sign measuring 4' x 10' attached flush against the front facade facing Third Avenue. Chairman pro tem Rice commented that he did not like the large heart on the sign--it was out of scale with the rest of the sign--it should be more of a background. Member Stewart suggested that two signs be allowed: one on the east and the other on the west side of the building attached to the bottom of the roof level, and to do away with the heart on the signs. He felt this would blend in much better with the area, and would be readily visible to the passing motorist. -7- 8/18/69 Director Warren suggested the Commission give the applicant an alternative, as he may want to have a sign on the front of his building. In any event, the signs should be no higher than 2' and relate the signs to scale. MSUC (Putnam-Chandler) Denial of the sign as proposed, and approval of the following: 1. Signs which can be attached to both ends of the porch area, flush with the bottom of the facade. 2. Signs to be related to scale, no higher than 2', with other dimensions as approved by the staff. 3. The heart emblem to be included in the background of the sign. Request for approval of sign in C-C-D zone - 4026 Bonita Road~ Mamma Rosa Restaurant Director of Planning Warren stated that this concerns a 3' x 16' masonite sign installed on the parapet of the building. The regulations for signs in this zone is one square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of building frontage and requiring Planning Commission approval. The applicant was aware of this regulation, but proceeded to install the sign without approval. The Council has recently passed an emergency ordinance allowing 100 square feet maximum with 1 square foot allowed for each lineal foot of business frontage. This would allow the applicant a sign not to exceed 29 square feet. The staff recommends denial of the applicant's request, and that he be required to submit new sketches of a sign to be no more than 29 square feet maximum. The Commission agreed that the existing sign should come down as it was not in keeping with the signs in the shopping center. MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) Denial of the approval of the existing sign with the condition that this sign be removed no later than September 18, 1969, or sooner if a new sign is ready for installation. Also, that sketches of a new sign (not to exceed 29' maximum) and to be attached to the parapet wall, shall be submitted to the Planning staff for approval within 10 days. The sign tacked to the tree shall be removed immediately. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE - Modifications to lot size provisions in the R-1 and R-2 zones and modification of procedures tn the R-2 zone Director of Planning Warren reviewed the proposed ordinance stating the staff is recommending a modification to the lot size in the R-1 and R-2 zones and a modification of the procedure in the R-2 zone. The recommended 5,000 square foot lot would not replace the 7,000 square foot minimum, but it would provide a full range of lot sizes as found elsewhere in the County. It would be used primarily on level ground, and should be a permitted zone. -8- 8/18/69 If the Commission adopts the R-2 zoning procedure and feels that the density is appropriate, it is the opinion of the staff that the land use would not be changed substantially by permitting the attached unit; therefore, it should not be subject to the conditional use permit process. Mr. Warren added that two attached single-family dwelling units tend to attract families to a much greater degree than an ordinary duplex, so they would specify in this ordinance that additional open space be required for these units. City Attorney Lindberg gave the Commission a copy of a proposed ordinance covering this amendment. He explained that what they have essentially tried to do was that in the R-2 development attached single-family dwelling units for individual sale, the developer be required to establish conditions, such as deed restrictions, which would insure a more harmonious repair and remodeling of the structures. They recognize that there has to be more compatibility between structures that are one building than those buildings separated by 5 feet or lO feet. This may require the formation of a Maintenance District. This would be the first such District and it would show how it can keep the level of a neighborhood in top maintenance quality. One of the things that you are confronted with is not density or architectural control, but what people do with their property after they acquire it. Chairman pro tem Rice asked if a group of people get together, and through legal action, have the deed restriction removed. City Attorney Lindberg stated they could; however, it was unlikely that they would work against their own interests. The Maintenance District would be composed of members in this subdivision and they would act as an architectural jury, in effect. Director Warren remarked that the question was whether they do this by conditional use permit or the procedure described in the proposed ordinance. Member Stewart questioned the principal permitted use under B (3): two single- family dwelling units on any lot. City Attorney Lindberg stated this was another effort to broaden the flexibility of the zone; it is used by the City and County of San Diego. Member Stewart remarked that they used to have it in this zoning ordinance but took it out for good reason. They determined that one house in back of another wasn't a good idea. City Attorney Lindberg declared he wasn't trying to defend this, although he favored it; it was put into the ordinance so the Commission could keep it, if they wished. Member Adams agreed with Member Stewart, commenting that they would be going a step backwards, in going back to this provision which they took out of the ordinance some time ago. He would like to see it eliminated, also. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. -9- 8/18/69 Mr. William Sullins, Chief Administrative Officer Pro Tempore, spoke in favor of the proposed modifications stating this was needed for quite some time to allow for better development of the entire city area, without providing a situation that would eliminate the 7,000 square feet minimum. He felt the ordinance, as prepared by the City Attorney, might be a complicated approach to the proposed amendment, as compared with the original program. Mr. Sullins declared that he feels it would be a mistake to influence the situation by imposing all these restrictions in this program. The plan, as originated with the Planning Director, provided sufficient control by the Commission. He commented that one of the reasons the Planned Unit Development was never used was because it was complicated and ambiguous in places, and the contrac- tors were afraid of it. He would not want to see this same thing happen in this proposed amendment. City Attorney Lindberg alleged that nothing has been added in the 5,000 square foot lot--the Planning Department did not like his recommendations, but he still plans to push for them. The 6,000 square foot R-2 lot provisions were proposed by the Planning Department. The restrictions were put in when this was lifted from the conditional use permit section and put in as a permitted use in order to set forth some sort of standards that would assist in controlling this type of development. Mr. Sullins contended that it was his understanding that this would be part of the ordinance, and he reiterated that these provisions would only tend to complicate the matter beyond the point that many of the contractors would not want to work with it. Director Warren agreed that it should be kept as simple as possible, and before the ordinance goes to the City Council, it will reflect the philosophy of the Commission. Mr. Sullins again stated that his real objection is to the Special District, or Maintenance District, to be set up under the 6,000 square foot lots. Talking to some of the contractors, they do not want to work with an ordinance that has a number of provisions and restrictions, besides which a District such as the one suggested, would be too arbitrary anddifficult to enforce. Member Adams agreed. The Commission agreed that they would like to see this matter continued to the next meeting. MSUC (Macevicz-Chandler) This hearing be continued to the next meeting (September 3, 1969). Under discussion, Member Stewart maintained that what has been proposed by the Planning Director for the 5,000 square foot lots will be seized upon by every developer that has a level piece of land. He doesn't agree that a contractor should be allowed to do this--it is not always appropriate. In talking to a number of cities about this, they place their 5,000 square foot lots on certain land; this may or may not be a good approach. The question is whether they are opening up "Pandora's box" in allowing this 5,000 square foot lots to be put on level land. He personally, is against it. -10- 8/18/69 Director Warren discussed this indicating it was not easy for the City to accept a change that has been the standard for years, but because it is a standard doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed. The intent of the Zoning Ordinance depends upon the make-up of the Planning Commission and City Council in years to come. If they are going to create a 5,000 square foot zone and have it usable, they must come right out and state that the zone is available without restrictions. Mr. Warren discussed the use of this lot size in San Diego and other cities. He admitted that every developer coming in will be asking for this 5,000 square foot lot size, but there is no reason to assume that he will get it--that the Commission or the Council will grant it to him. In those cases where tile developer can justify it, then they should have it. Member Macevicz spoke of the developers providing a building pad of 3,500 or 4,000 square feet and the rest of it is either straight down the hill or straight up, and it counts for square footage of the lot, and it is absolutely worthless. Member Adams claimed that this puts space between houses and it determines density. Chairman pro rem Rice stated that the Commission will find it very difficult to try to maintain the 7,000 square foot minimum lots when every developer will be asking for the 5,000 square feet. He felt that eventually the 7,000 square foot lots will go by the way, and this would be unfortunate because Chula Vista is noted for its large lots. Mr. Rice declared that there has to be some type of effective control to keep this ordinance from getting out of hand. Member Stewart claimed the problem lies with the wording: "it could be used in level areas." He believes it was the contention of the staff that the Commission use this in determining where they will approve R-l-5 lots. If this is put in to be used as a tool and to influence people, then they are in deep trouble. If they are going to go to 5,000 square foot lots, they need either some type of control, or they will end up without any controls, and what is proposed here only gets the staff and the Commission into difficulties trying to use what they have for any means of control. City Attorney Lindberg discussed the ordinance as exercised in San Diego. In many cases the 5,000 square foot lots are not used by developers, because this was not what the people wanted. Mr. Sullins commented that the R-l-5 could be assigned to certain properties, on submission of a subdivision map or a comprehensive plan. This is more restrictive, but it would give more control and would be acceptable to the contractors. It would give sufficient control all the way through, and it is something very definitely needed in this City. -11- 8/18/69 Request for extension of time - Conditional Use Permits and Variances - Service Stations: 1. Northwest corner Orange Avenue and Melrose Avenue 2. Northwest corner Bonita Road and Bonita Mesa Road Director of Planning Warren stated this was a request for an extension of time on the two proposed service stations. The one at the corner of Bonita and Bonita Mesa Road: the staff can see no change in this area and therefore recommend approval of the extension to March l, 1972. As to the station at the northwest corner of Orange and Melrose Avenues, the staff has reviewed some preliminary site layouts by the developers prior to the submission of detailed plans for the shopping center. Since the shopping center will start construction soon, the staff is recommending a new condition to be added to the conditional use permit which will require that the architecture of the proposed service station be coordinated with the buildings proposed in this shopping center. The Commission concurred that this was a reasonable condition. MSUC (Chandler-Stewart) Extension of time to March 1, 1972 for the proposed service station at the northwest corner of Bonita Road and Bonita Mesa Road, and also for the station at the northwest corner of Orange Avenue and Melrose Avenue with the added condition to the conditional use permit that the architecture of the proposed station be coordinated with the other buildings proposed in the shopping center. Request for approval of Move-In - 736 F Street - Stanley A. Kr~stek Director of Planning Warren submitted some photographs showing the proposed move-in and noted the location on a plat. The staff's greatest concern is the effect it will have on the adjacent residential area. The staff is recommending approval based on the criteria of the ordinance with a condition that a change in colors of the building be submitted to the staff for approval. MSUC (Adams-Putnam) Approval of the move-in in accordance with Section 8.21 of the City Code with the finding that the building will be compatible with the surrounding area and subject to the conditions of any other departmental requirements. If a change of color of the building is proposed by the applicant, he shall submit such change to the Planning staff for approval. Request for approval of Move-In - 3998 Palm Drive - Daniel Green Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the property owned by the applicant. He plans to split the property into 4 lots, each having one-half acre. The building, when brought up to the Building Code, would be compatible with those in the area. The lot doesn't have the proper frontage, so the applicant must have the approval of a zone variance in order to construct a home on this lot. The staff is recommending approval of the move-in subject to the subsequent approval of a variance. The Commission found nothing objectionable about the request and agreed it should be approved. MSUC (Adams-Chandler) Approval of the move-in in accordance with Section 8.21 -12- 8/15/69 of the City Code and subject to the conditions outlined by the Building Inspection Department and upon approval of a zone variance for the construc- tion of a house without street frontage. American Oil Station on Bonita Road Member Chandler mentioned the many signs going up at the new service station on Bonita Road at Bonita Glen Drive. Director Warren indicated these signs were hard to control, but the staff would look into it. Workshop Director Warren reminded the Commission of the workshop meeting to be held on August 27, 1969, at 7 p.m. in the Administrative Conference Room. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Putnam-Chandler) Meeting be adjourned to the workshop meeting of August 27, 1969. The meeting adjourned at 10 p.m. ReEpectful ly submitted, Secretary Corrections to minutes - Meeti?_~ of August At your meeting uf September 3, t969, Member Chandler indicated that he had made remarks concerning the proposed R-l-5 zone that he felt should logically have been included in the minutes - the staff was requested to review the tape and make additions as appropriate. The City Attorney also commented that the dialogue between the Chief Administrative Officer Pro Tempore and himself was not accurately reflected in the minutes, and that both he and Mr. Sullins should be given an opportunity to properly summarize their comments before correction to the minutes. Since same was solicited from both and nothing received, i would recommend that the minutes be changed as follows: PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDIHANCE - Modifications to lot size p. rovisions in the R-I and R-2 zones and modification of procedures ~n the R-2 zone Director of Planning Warren reviewed the proposed ordinance stating the staff is recommending a modification to the lot size in the R-1 and R-2 zones and a modification of the procedure in the R-2 zone. The recommended 5,000 square foot lot would not replace the 7,000 square foot minimum, but it v.'ould ~rovide a full range of lot sizes as found elsewhere in the County. It would be used primarily on level ground and as part of a comprehensive plan but should be a permitted zone. If the Commission recommends R-2 zoning for property and feels that the density is appropriate, it is the opinion of the staff that the land use would not be changed substantially by permitting the sale of attached units; therefore, it should not be subject to the conditional use permit process. Mr. Warren added that two attached single family dwelling units tend to attract families to a much greater degree than an ordinary duplex, so they would specify in this ordinance that additional open space be required for these units. City Attorr, ey Li,~dber~ ~a,.'e ~!:e Commi~sicn a ceFy cf ~ proposed ordinanc_~ coverin~ this amen~n:ent. He e;~T.!~in£d that wha~ they have essentially tried to do was that in tile 2,-2 dewlop:"qen~ attached single-family d~.;elling units for individual sale, the dove!oDer be required to establi~_t~ coF}dltions, such as deed restrict~oes, ',;!~ic~. would insure a more i]armonio~:s repair and remodeling of the strut%res. They recogn-~ze ti~at there !las co be more compatibility between strustL?eS that are on._= building than those builciin[~s se?arated by 5 feet or 1© fee~. This may require the fonmation of a ~iaiH~enance District. This would be the first SLich D!strict eno it would show how it can keep the level of a neigi]bo~i~ood in top maintenance quality. One of the things that you ane confronted wit!} is not density or architectural control, but what people do wiW~ their property after ~r:ey acquire it. Chairman pro ~em Rice asked if a grot~p of people get to~qether, and through legal action., nave [he deed restrictiom removed. City Attorney Lindberg sta~ed they could; hc,.~'ever, it was unlikeiu that they would work against their own interests. The F~ainte.nance ~ist.rict would be composed of members in this subdivision and they would act as an architectural ju~y, in effect. Director Warren ne[.,.~rked tic. at the mu~stien ',,'as w]etl~er they do this by conditional use permit ow the pr.~ce~re described in the proposed ordinance. ~ ~- ('"~rections to minutes - p.2) Member Stewart questioned the principal permitted use under B(3): two detached single family dwelling units on any lot. City &ttorney Lindberg stated this wes another effort to broaden the flexibility of the zone; it is used by the City and County of San Diego.~ Member Stewart remarked that they used to i~ave it in this zoning ordinance but took it out for good reason. They determined that one ho~se in back of another wasn't a ~eod idea. City Attorney Lindberg declared he wasn't trying to defend this, although he favored it; it was put ~nto the ordinance so the Ccmmission could keep it, if they wished. Member Adams agreed with M~mber Stewart, commenting that they would be going a step backwards, in goimg back to this provision which they took out of the ordinance some time ago. He would like to see it eliminated, also. This being the time and place as advertised, th~ public hearing was opened. Mr. William Sullins, Chief Administrative Officer Pro Tempore, spoke in favor of the proposed modifications stating this was needed for quite some time to allow for better development of the entire city area, without providing a situation that would eliminate the 7,000 square feet minimum. He expressed concern that the ordinance as prepared by the City Attorney might be unnecessarily restrictive and would deter the use of the provisions by the developers. City Attorney Lindberg stated that, in his opinion, the expanded ordinance reflected the attitude of the Director of Planning and that the additions to the ordinance would be supported by a majority of the developers. Director Warren agreed that it should be kept as simple as possible, and before the ordinance goes to the City Council, it will reflect the philosophy of the Commission. The Commission agreed that they would like to see this matter continued to the next meeting. MSUC (Macevicz-Chandler) This hearing be continued to the next meeting (September 3, 1969). Under discussion, Member Stewart maintained that what has been proposed by the Planning Director for the 5,000 square foot lots will be seized upon by every developer that has a level piece of land. He doesn't agree that a contractor should be allowed to do this--it is not always appropriate. In talking to a number of cities about this, they place their 5,000 square foot lots on certain land; this may Ur may not be a good approach. The question is whether they are opening up "Pandora's box" in allowing this 5,000 square foot lots to be put on level land. He personally, is against it. Member Chandler agreed and.added that he believes any reduction in the present minimum lot size should be related to topography and that compensating open spa~e should be provided. (Correction ts minutes - p.3) Director Warren discussed tqis b:dicat~'ng it was ~ict casS, fei' tile City to accept a change that has been tho standard For years, but because it is a standard doesn'i; mec..n it siiouldn't be ci~anoed. Tile intent of the Zoning Ordinance depends upon ti~e make-up of the ~ianning Commission; and City Council in years to come. If they are going to creatc a. 5,000 square foot zone and have 'it [,sable, they must come right out anti state that ~ zone is'available without restrictions. Mr. Warren disc[~ssed the use u/ this lot size in San Diego and other cities. He admitted that every developer coming in will be asking for this 5,000 square foot let size, but there is no reason to assume that lie will get it--Phat ti~e Con,mission or the C,Juncil will grant it to him. in .those cases where ti~e developer can justify it, then they should have it. Member Macevicz spoke of the developers providing a building pad of 3,500 or 4,000 square feet and the rest oF it is either straimht down the hill or straight up, and it counts for square footage of the-lot, and it is absolutely worthless. Member Adams claimed that this puts space between houses and it determines density. Chairman pro tern Rice stated that the Com~ission will find it very difficult to try to maintain the 7,000 square foot minimum lots when every developer will be asking for ti~e 5,000 square feet. Fie felt that eventually the 7,000 square foot 'lots will go by the way, and ti~is weuld be unfortunate because Chula V~sta is noted for its large lots. Mr. Rice declared that there has to be some type of effective control to keep this ordinance from ~oetti~ out ef hand. Member Stewart claimed the problem lies w~th the word~ng~ "it could be used in level areas." Fie believes it was the contention of ti~e staff that the Commission use this in determining where they will a!]prove ?.-i-5 lots. If this is put in to be used as a tool amd to influence people, then they are in dee~ trouble. If they are going to go to 5,000 square foot lets, they need either so,me type of control, or they will end up 'without an) controls, and what is proposed i~ere only gets the staff and the Commission into difficulties trying to use what they have for any means of control. City Attorney Lindberg discussed the ordinance as exercised in San Diemo. In many cases the 5,000 square foot lots are not used by developers, because this was not what the people wanted. Mr. Sullins commented that the R-l-5 could be assigned w.o certain properties, on submission of a subdivision map or a co?rehenslve plan. This is more restrictive, but it would give more control and would be acceptable to the contractors, it would give sufficient control ail the way through, and it is something very definitely needed in this City.