Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1969/08/04 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA August 4, 1969 The regular 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: Hyde, Macevicz, Stewart, Chandler, Adams, and Putnam. Absent: (with previous notification) Member Rice. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Assistant Planner Lee, Zoning Enforcement Officer Hodge, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) - Rezoning and Prezoning - "L" Street between Fourth and Fifth Avenues (north 300') - County R-2-A to R-3 - Offerman Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the parcels in question. He explained that this matter was continued from the meeting of May 5, 1969, in order to give the applicant time to present a proposed development plan, a lot consolidation plan, a subdivision map, or a combination of these for Commission consideration. Since this last hearing, the staff has met with the property owners involved and they have submitted a schematic plan. Mr. Warren proceeded to review the sketch plans submitted by the applicants, noting the recent purchase of property in this area for a church site, and the staff objections to the plans, as submitted. He stated that the Commission has at least three alternatives for action: (1) prezone the entire property to R-1 employing the dwelling group provision for devel- opment of the deep lots at 1 unit per 7000 square feet; (2) prezone the area to R-2 and employ the dwelling groups provision for development of one unit per 3500 square feet; or (3) prezone to R-3-G (one unit per 2500 square feet) and attach the precise plan modifying zone as provided in the new zoning ordinance. The staff recommends the third alternative for the entire area with the exception of the four parcels fronting on Fifth Avenue. He added that the ordinance should become effective only as approved plans for development are submitted to the Commission. Director Warren then explained, in detail, the composition of the Precise Plan modifying zone. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was reopened. Mr. Gaylor Henry, attorney representing the applicants, from the firm of Miller, Evatt & Henry, S. D. Trust & Savings Building, San Diego, reviewed the zoning as existing in the County and described the land use in the area. He stated that they hoped to get one unit per 2,000 square feet of land area, and they still affirm that it is reasonable to do so. He added that he cannot see where anything more restrictive than the R-3-G could be practical. Mr. Henry then questioned the procedure they would have to follow under the Precise Plan Zone. City Attorney Lindberg explained that they could submit their plans for approval at any time to the Commission - before or after annexation. Clarifying Mr. Warren's opinion, the underlying zone would become effective in 30 days, and this zoning would stay the same and would not change until the Precise Plan was adopted. Under the Precise Plan, no ~ublic hearing is required unless the Commission desires to hot. d one. 814169 Speaking in opposition were: Paul Kane, 434 Westby Street; Eugene Mrowka, 438 Westby Street; John Garduno, 469 Westby Street; Paul Leblanc, Westby Street; Millard Showman, 410 "L" Street; Peter Dirkx, 910 Fourth Avenue; and Jesse Dye, 465 Westby Street. Their objections were: (1) p~oper development can be made under the present zoning; (2) it should stay R-2-A - no sense in changing the zone and bring in more people into the area; (3) the proposed apartment complex would have a 15' rear yard under the R-3-G Zone which would invade the privacy for the adjacent single-family residences - it should be 25 feet; (4) they question the "G" designation - garden type apartments; (5) they are opposed to the two-story buildings as they will not be compatible with the single-story residences; (6) if the rez~ning goes through, many people in the area have voiced their intention to move; (7) it is inconsistent with the General Plan; (8) concerned with the noise associated with a parking lot in the back of the apartments and the headlights shining onto the adjacent residences, etc. - they feel the rear yard of the proposed complex should be compatible with the adjacent residences; (9) the development, as outlined, will not be compatible with the surrounding residential area and thereby, will not "protect" the residential zone; (1~) there will be a serious traffic problem in this area; (11) the residents are concerned with allowing commercial use next to the R-3~G, and especially to having a service station on the southwest corner of Fourth and L Street all of which could result as an effect of this prezoning; (12) some of the property owners included in this prezoning do not wish to be annexed to the City; (13) many letters and two petitions have been sub- mitred to the staff in protest of the zone change - the voices of the majority of the people should be recognized. Director Warren explained the hei§ht limitation in the R-3-G zone - it could presumably go to three stories; however, the applicants have indicated they will construct 1 and 2-story buildings - the one story buildings will be oriented toward the single-family residences to the sou~h and the two-story buildings teward L Street. Chairman Hyde commented that one feature of the Precise Plan zone gives the Commission control over the number of stories the applicant can build. Mr. Lou Behrens, realtor representing the applicants, claimed there was no need to go high-rise and added that he felt the protestants did not understand the type and size of an apartment unit which would necessarily have to be built at this density. Chairman H~de commented on the remarks of one of the people protesting that commercial use would be allowed in this area. He explained that such a rezoning request would have to be made to the Commission, and it would be considered on its own merits. City Attorney Lindberg discussed the comments made by one of the people con- cerning the "desire of the majority of the people in the area." He explained that the purpose of a hearing was to get the opinions of all the people con- cerned. Just having a majority cannot be the determining factor; and petitions and letters are, by their very nature, not subject to cross-examination, there- fore, they are not read at the meetings, merely acknowledged. -2- 8/4/69 Mr. Henry stated that the applicants have no intention of constructing three-story units. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Stewart commented on the request for the change of zone from what is effectively 3000 square feet for each unit, as allowed in the County to 2500 square feet. He remarked that the staff is recommending the Precise Plan zone under which the plans must show that the development would be compatible with the area. In the County, under the existing zone, the app- licants can build with no restriction whatsoever. Chairman Hyde concurred adding that the area is already zoned for multiple- family use. Member Adams commented on the parking situation stating that there can be no assurance that parking will not occur on the streets - you have this in the single-family residential areas. The Commission can only try to assure that the parking lots would be so situated as to be inviting to the people that will be using them. The City would require more parking than the County. RESOLUTION NO. 583 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to City Council the Prezoning of Property on the South MSUC (Adams-Stewart) Side of "L" Street between Fourth and Fifth Avenues from County R-2-A to R-3-G-P and R-2. Findings are as follows: a. The configuration of the parcels and existing land use are such that the flexibility of R-3-G zoning is necessary to facilitate good development. b. With the attachment of the Precise Plan, a development will be assured that will be compatible with the surrounding res- idential area. c. Since no need exists at this time, and since the property owners have objected, the property presently in the City, will not be rezoned. Under discussion, Mr. Dirkx, owner of one of the parcels presently in the City zoned R-l, objected to having his property rezoned to R-3~G. Director Warren stated it was the opinion of the staff that in order for his property to be developed under the R-3-G category, it would have to be combined with other adjacent parcels. The Commission agreed that the property should not be rezoned. -3- 8/4/69 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING - 278 "I" Street - C-1 to R-3 - Robert Hayes and P. Hodgens Director of Blanning Warren submitted a p}ot plan noting the property in question, the adjacent land use and zoning. The request is to rezone portions of two parcels of land located on the south side of "I" Street, 217 feet east of Third Avenue. One of the lots is located directly behind the other and is landlocked--both are under the same ownership. The applicants are also requesting a setback change from 5' to 15'. The staff recommends approval since the property does not have adequate depth to accommodate sound commercial development, and a portion of the property is already zoned R-3. This being the time and p~ace as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. and Mrs. Charles Williams, 268 "I" Street, stated she and her husband were in full accord with the request. Mrs. Snubb, living opposite 278 "I" Street, said she was concerned about the parking. Chairman Hyde explained the ordinance requiring onsi~e parking. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. RESOLUTION NO. 584 Resolution of the City Planning Commission MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) Recommending to the City Council the Rezoning of Property at 278 "I" Street from C-1 to R-3 Findings be as follows: 1. The property does not have the adequate depth or size necessary to accommodate sound commercial development. 2. A portion of the property already bears the R-3 designation. 3. Detailed studies of this area for zoning purposes show that R-3 zoning would accomplish the intent of the General Plan. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - 648 East J Street - Reduction of front yard from 15' to 12'6" and side yard from 5' to 3' - Pacific Bay Land Co. Kenneth Lee, Assistant Planner, submitted a plot plan noting the lot in question. The applicant is presently constructing 42 homes in this first unit of San Simeon Subdivision, and the dwelling on this lot (19) was under construction when an error was discovered as to the location of the house as it relates to the plot plan. Consequently, the developer is requesting a variance to rectify this error, since they feel it would not be feasible to ,x~ve the house. Mr. Lee delineated the setback reductions requested by the applicant, and explained that although the lot is quite large, it has a narrow lot frontage which makes it impossible to use any type of drive other than the straight-in, as pro- posed. This leaves 16' from the sidewalk to the garage door, whereas, the ordinance requires 20'. The staff is concerned here that in allowing this, there would be a conflict with the safety standards which were adopted for distance required August 4, 1969 between the sidewalk and garage doors. The staff has no choice but to recom- mend denial since no exceptional circumstances were presented which would justify the granting of this variance, and the developer could have accommodated the house on this lot observing all the setback requirements. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Eugene Cook, Engineer for the subdivision, stated the house was put forward 5' to 6' more than was originally established. Mr. Cook indicated that children in the area had, perhaps, uprouted the stakes, thus causing the change in location. He added that since most cars are 18' long, there won't be too much overhang onto the sidewalk. Fifty percent of the house has already been constructed; they were about to put the roof on the dwelling when the mistake was noticed. Mr. Shulman, Christiana Community Builders, builders of this subdivision, claimed they hire the best people in the world, but even with the best, things can go wrong. They firmly believe some of the children in the area moved one or two of the stakes, and their layout man perhaps found one of the stakes and took it from there. He asked the Commission's help in this request. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Director of Planning Warren declared that the staff is in no way attempting to question the developer in this case. The staff is puzzled as to establish some findings for justification of the variance. City Attorney Lindberg informed the Commission that they should consider this situation by the fact that it was not mitigated in any deliberate manner by the developer to justify requesting a variance. What seems to be the request of the strict letter of the law is that the building be moved in order to comply fully with the zoning requirements. This, he felt, was comprising some hard- ship of the nature they recognize in granting a variance. Mr. Cook stated, in answer to Member Chandler's inquiry, that in complying with the ordinance, they would have to destroy the house, keeping just the studs. If the request is denied, they stand to lose approximately $7,000 to $10,000. Member Macevicz stated he was concerned with the safety factor involved here, especially in regard to the children walking to school who will have to go around any car parked on the sidewalk. Member Adams commented that he always understood that exceptional circumstances applied to the land. City Attorney Lindberg explained this would be the case - theCommission would be looking at a variance in terms of the conditions of the property which would not permit the use of the property in the same manner as any other properties situated within the zone could be used, by virtue of an extraordinary lack of depth, width, terrain, etc., that would affect the use of the land. However, the Commission may not ignore a situation where a building exists on property, because of its construction which is now a physical matter, to be considered - the property subjected to the strict interpretation of the zoning ordinance could not be used as other properties in the area can be used. According to the ordinance, he feels they are not confined to such a degree as to overlook the totality of the circumstances here. -5- August 4, 1969 Member Macevicz indicated that these developers are all insured against vandalism, and that this mistake would be covered by the insurance company. Mr. Schulman claimed it was quite difficult to get money from the insurance companies, besides the amount of time involved in filing the claim, etc. Member Stewart questioned the duty of the Building Inspectors in inspecting the foundation and finding these errors. City Attorney Lindberg stated this was true - before the forms were poured, the inspectors should have discovered this error. Mr. Warren questioned this, doubting that the responsibility lies with the Inspectors. Member Macevicz declared it was the duty of the developer to see that the forms were in the right place - not the Building Inspector's. The Commission felt they would be remiss in their duties if they approved this variance, especially in light of the Director's remarks that the safety factor would be violated. Member Adams added that the developers have the recourse of appeal to the Council. MSUC (Adams-Stewart) Denial of the variance request, based on the following findings: 1. Strict application of the ordinance would not create any hardship since the house can be accommodated on the site and still observe all of the required setbacks. 2. There are no exceptional circumstances on this property which do not apply to other properties in the neighborhood. 3. The variance would be detrimental in allowing a condition to exist which is in conflict with the safety stand.~ards adopted for distance required between sidewalk and garage doors. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - 81 quintard Street - Create two lots served bs 20' easement - H. S. Alagata Assistant Planner Lee submitted a plot plan noting the location of the property in question, the adjacent land use and zoning. The property measures 155' x 180' and was prezoned R-3-B-3-D as part of the Casey's First Avenue Annexation. The applicant had proposed a lot split, splitting this parcel in half, which was first started in the County, and then the property was annexed to the City. The parcels will be served by a 20' easement - the ordinance requires 50' of lot frontage on a dedicated street. Under the new zoning designation, this property will have the R-3-G classification. The staff recommends approval subject to the condition that the 20' wide strip be paved in accordance with the standards provided in the zoning ordinance. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. H. Alagata, the applicant, questioned the R-3-G designation. Mr. Lee explained it would allow him 2500 square feet of land area for each unit instead of the 3000 square feet, as presently zoned. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Under discussion, the Commission concurred that the request was a ressonable one and there were exceptional circumstances to justify this. MSUC (Putnam-Macevicz) Approval of the variance request, subject to the following condition: The 20' wide strip shall be paved in accordance with the standards provided in the Zoning Ordinance. 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. Strict application would not allow the property to be divided to sell. 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 property exists with 20' wide frontage. 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 neighbor- hood in which the property is located. The division of land will have no detrimental effect on the site. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan is not affected. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - 584 E Street - Addition to existin9 office structure in R-1 zone and utilize tandem parkin§ - R. Botterman Assistant Planner Kenneth Lee submitted a plot plan noting the area in question, the adjacent land use and zoning. There is an existing single-family dwelling on the property which has been used as an office since 1948; the applicant desires to expand this office. This lot abuts East Park Lane which is a 60' wide alley and utilizes angle parking along the entire easterly portion. The applicant proposes to provide a total of 7 parking spaces, three of which will be tandem spaces in this right-of-way which will be used primarily by his staff. Mr. Lee noted the existing telephone pole on this westerly side of the lot and stated it would have to be moved so as not to interfere with the parking stalls as proposed. He then reviewed the other staff conditions of approval. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Dr. Robert Botterman, the applicant, stated he plans to add on a new radiology facility and, in general, to expand the office. He added he will comply with the conditions, as delineated by the Assistant Planner. August 4, 1969 There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Chairman Hyde commented that the property will be enhanced in its appearance, in complying with the conditions for approval. The Commission concurred. MSUC (Chandler-Putnam) Approval of the variance request, subject to the following conditions: 1. The parking shall be developed as shown on the approved plans, including the relocation of the telephone pole and guy wire on the westerly property line if said structures interfere with parking stalls,upon final staff review. 2. All proposed signs shall be submitted for staff review and shall not exceed the standards adopted in the C-O Zone. 3. Landscaping plans shall be approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. Elevations including color schemes shall be approved by the Planning Commission or staff. 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 property has been utilized since 1948 for office use; failure to provide for the necessary expansion would effectively eliminate the authorized use. 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. Property has been used for 21 years as a professional office with City Council authorization. The use represents a buffer between the C-2 uses to the neighborhood in which the property is located. 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 neighbor- hood in which the property is located. Granting this variance will provide for an improvement of the site with parking and architectural features. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan is not necessarily affected by one lot revisions to the zoning pattern since the plan indicates general areas for development. -8- PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - 528 Fig Avenue - Use pmoperts zoned R-1 as supple- mental parking lot for San Diego Trust & Savings Bank - Clerico Assistant Planner Lee submitted a plot plan noting the location of the property in question, the adjacent land use and zoning. The property is presently zoned R-l, and the applicant is requesting permission to remove the existing single- family residence and develop the lot as an additional parking facility for the bank located across Shasta Street, directly north of the lot. The applicant is also requesting a vacation of Shasta Street in order to make the development as one unit. The staff is recommending approval of the request subject to conditions of constructing a wall along the southerly and easterly property lines; for landscaping; and asking that no access to Fig Avenue be permitted south of Shasta Street. Member Stewart suggested that the traffic be allowed to come through and out of Shasta Street in a circular route. Director Warren commented that this sounds reasonable. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Ed Brodie, 543 Fig Street, expressed his opposition to the request citing the traffic problem in the area especially on Friday evenings when the bank stays open. Mr. Andrew Henry, realtor, expressed the need for having more parking for the bank facility, and their willingness to buy this property for that purpose. Chairman Hyde asked ifa traffic study of this particular street could be made to determine the best traffic pattern. The Commission agreed that this should be done, and that the request was a feasible one which would improve the situation for the bank facility. MSUC (Putnam-Adams) Approval of the variance request, subject to the following conditions: 1. The vacation of Shasta Street west of Fig Avenue. The Commission directed that a study of the traffic pattern on this street be made by the City Traffic Engineer. 2. The w~ver of deed restrictions which presently restricts this site to residential purposes. 3. A solid slumpstone wall shall be constructed along the southerly property line (6' high to the front setback, then 3½' to Fig) and easterly property line (3½' high, set back 1' from the sidewalk). Design and color scheme to be coordinated with the existing wall. 4. Landscaping and irrigation plan shall be submitted for staff approval similar to the plan for the existing parking facilities, using landscaping both inside and outside the wall utilizing the city's Landscape Manual for a guide. 5. No access to Fig Avenue shall be permitted south of Shasta Street. -9- 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. Strict application would cause a continued traffic problem for the area. 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 property adjoins an existing commercial parking lot; the vacation of Shasta Street will allow the entire site to be developed as one lot. c. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or i~mprovements in such zone or neighbor- hood in which the property is located. The conditions imposed will prevent any detrimental effect in the neighborhood. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan is not affected by this request. - Request for waiver of underground utilities - 228 Twin Oaks - Frank Sipan Kenneth Lee, Assistant Planner, submitted a plot plan noting the property for which the applicant is requesting a waiver of the underground utility service ordinance. He proposes to construct a 5-unit apartment building, and cites the adjacent triplex constructed 7 feet from the southerly property line which is served with overhead service from a pole located in the parkway adjacent to this southerly property line. The utility companies have indicated that there would be no problem in providing this underground service other than an increase in conduit and wire size. The staff can find no exceptional circumstances, as required by the ordinance, to recommend the waiver. As the area rede~ops for the R-3 use, it would seem feasible to underground with each project. Mr. Frank Sipan, the applicant, 335 Kimball Terrace, stated it is the last vacant lot on the street, and the only one on the street to have underground utility service, if this will be required. The possibility of anything on this street being redeveloped in the near future is remote since none of the homes in this block are old. The Commission discussed establishing a policy for the waiver of this service, and Chairman Hyde asked t~e Director of Planning to put this on the next workshop agenda. Member Adams declared that if the Commission does not require the underground service at this point, it will be difficult to require it for any request. The Commission concurred, noting that someone on the street has to be the first, and the law does state that it must be put in. -10- August 4, 1969 MSUC (Macevic~ - Adams) Denial of the request for waiver based on the following reasons: 1. No exceptional circumstances were found needed for a waiver as required by ordinance which would justify the granting of this request. 2. The utility companies indicate that no problems exist in providing under- ground service other than an increase in conduit and wire size. 3. The area is presently zoned R-3 and developed primarily with single-family homes. As the area redevelops for apartment use, it would seem feasible to underground with each project. PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) - AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE - Regulation of the displa~ of outdoor advertising Director of Planning Warren explained that this would actually be an amendment to the City Code; it would be a separate chapter. He discussed the contents of the ordinance and commented that all the changes made by the Commission at the last meeting have been incorporated into the amendment. Mr. Warren reviewed the changes noting that in Section 35.105, the distance between the signs will now be 1000' instead of 500', as originally written. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Lou England, representing Pacific Outdoor Advertising Company, spoke on the change to Section 35.105 stating the 1000' is an excessive one and should be measured parallel to the street. He added that almost every jurisdiction that investigated this matter came up with the 500' figure; and having 500' in the ordinance does not necessarily mean there will be a board up every 500' This is a physical impossibility because of street patterns, buildings, etc. They would recommend they be allowed to put in two boards in 1500 feet with the 500 foot spacing. Director Warren commented that they should consider the effect of billboards - they should be readable and if the 500' spacing is permitted, a driver traveling 65 miles an hour would be reading a board every 5 seconds. Mr. England stated that this ruling would apply on local streets. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Putnam felt Mr. England's suggestion was a good one, and the Commission should allow more flexibility on the spacing. Member Stewart disagreed declaring that the public welfare should be the dictating influence here. The area - land and space - belong to the people and should not be totally obscured with billboards. He maintained that 500' spacing between the boards is too close. RESOLUTION NO. 585 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending MSUC (Adams-Chandler) to the City Council the Adoption of an Amendment to the City Code Regulating the Display of Outdoor Advertising -11- August 4, 1969 PUBLIC HEARING - Amendment to Administrative Procedures Section of Zoning Ordinance City Attorney Lindberg asked that this matter be continued in order to give him a chance to thoroughly review the proposed amendment. He indicated he would like the opportunity to prepare a memo to the Commission on it. MSUC (Putnam-Chandler) The public hearing be continued to the meeting of September 3, 1969. Chairman Hyde asked that this be made a subject of the next workshop meeting. Subdivision - Tentative Map - Locdel Estates #1 Assistant Planner Lee noted the location of the subdivision as lying south of Oxford Street, west of Nolan Avenue. The area contains 2.3 acres and will be developed with 12 single-family lots. Both the Planning and Engineering staffs recommend approval with no conditions. MSUC (Stewart-Macevicz) Recommend approval of the tentative map with no conditions. Subdivision - Final Map - Russell Subdivision (formerly Flair #5) Assistant Planner Lee submitted the map noting the location of the subdivision as north of Orange Avenue and east of the proposed 805 freeway with Lantana Avenue terminating at the westerly end of the subdivision. The area comprises 4 acres of land and will be developed with 18 single-family dwellings. The staff recommends approval subject to the condition recommended by the Division of Engineering. MSUC (Chandler-Putnam) Recommend approval of the final map subject to the following condition: The final map shall not be submitted for Council action until corrections are made to the map in accordance with the check sheets, all fees are paid and all necessary bonds, agreements, deeds, letters, improvement plans and easements, as required by the City Engineer, have been delivered to the City. Subdivision - Nacion Estates - Final Map (Placed on agenda during meeting at staff's request) Assistant Planner Lee submitted the map noting the location of the subdivision which is located south of the San Diego easement and northeast of Flair Annex. He remarked that one condition of the tentative map was that Nacion Avenue be extended to meet Palomar Street with full street improvements. Assistant City Engineer Gesley explained that the Commission requested full street improvements; however, the Council left some of the improvements off, and the final map does conform to the Council approval. The developer has put in two lanes of black top through the San Diego Gas & Electric right-of-way. -12- August 4, 1969 Member Macevicz expressed his concern over allowing just the partial improvements. City Attorney Lindberg commented that the map does now conform to the tentative, and the Commission has little choice but to approve it. MSC (Stewart-Chandler) Recommend approval of the final map subject to the follow- ing condition: The final map shall not be submitted for Council action until corrections are made to the map in accordance with the check sheets, all fees are paid and all necessary bonds, agreements, deeds, letters, improvement plans and easements, as required by the City Engineer, have been delivered to the City. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Stewart, Chandler, Hyde, Adams, and Putnam NOES: None ABSENT: Member Rice ABSTAIN:Member Macevicz Member Macevicz stated that if the Planning Commission has no choice but to approve final maps, they should not be on their agenda. Mr. Warren said a change in procedure is under study. Resolution approving Chart of Permitted Uses in Residential and Commercial Zones _ Director of Planning Warren noted the chart of the uses permitted explaining that the zoning ordinance does not delineate all these uses. The staff felt they should have this chart in order to spell out each individual use~ MSUC (Stewart-Macevicz) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Adopting the RESOLUTION NO. 586 Chart of Permitted Uses in Residential and Commercial Zones League Dinner Director of Planning Warren informed the Commission that the next dinner meeting of the League of California Cities will be held on August 15 at Del Mar, with the usual "Day at the Races" for those wishing to attend. The Secretary was directed to call the Commission for reservations. Workshop Meeting The Commission discussed possible dates for a workshop meeting. It was agreed to hold the meeting on August 27. The Director of Planning indicated he would inform the Commission as to the meeting place. Joint Meeting Chairman Hyde noted the action recently taken by the Imperial Beach Planning Commission on this suggestion, stating they will give it their full support. Mr. Hyde indicated that the joint meeting of the Planning Commissions will be scheduled for early fall. -13- August 4, 1969 Vacation of Chairman Chairman Hyde asked permission to be excused from the meeting of August 18 since he will be on vacation at this time. MSUC (Stewart-Chandler) Permission granted for the Chairman to be absent from the meeting of August 18. September Meeting Date MSUC (Stewart-Putnam) Resolation of the Planning Commission Changing RESOLUTION NO. 587 Meeting Date of September 1, 1969 to Sept. 3, 1969 ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Macevicz-Chandler) Meeting be adjourned to the meeting of August 18 and the workshop meeting of August 27, 1969. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~dennle M. Fulasz -- --Secretary