HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1969/03/17 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
March 17, 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,
Chula Vista, California, with the following members present: Hyde, Macevicz, Stewart,
Chandler, Adams, and Putnam. Absent: Member Rice (with previous notification).
Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, Junior
Planner Liuag, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley.
New Commissioner
Chairman Hyde introduced Mr. John A. Macevicz, the new member to the Commission.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Putnam-Adams) Minutes of the meeting of March 3, 1969 be approved, as mailed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Rezoning - North of Telegraph Canyon Road between Hilltop Drive and
L Street from R-1 to C-I, R-2 and R-3-B-3 - Otay Land Company
PUBLIC HEARING - Conditional Use Permit - North of Telegraph Canyon Road between Hill-
top Drive and L Street Request to construct and split duplexes for
individual sale in proposed R-2 zone - Otay Land Company
The Commission concurred that these two matters should be discussed together; however,
action on each would be taken separately.
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, adjacent land
use and zoning in the area. The Planning Commission recently denied a request for
R-3 and C-1 for this same property. The applicant appealed the decision to the
Council but subsequently dropped it. This is a new public hearing and a new request.
The applicant is now requesting rezonin9 from R-1 to C-1 for approximately 8 acres,
to R-3-B-3 for 23 acres and to R-2 for the remaining 16 acres. The area encompasses
47.4 acres of vacant land located on the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road, west of
the proposed Inland Freeway. The commercial zoning is requested for that area between
the freeway right-of-way and the future extension of Nacion Avenue; the R-2 zoning is
for a 100' to 105' wide strip around the perimeter of the property while the R-3-B-3
would be that property surrounded by the R-2 strip.
A conditional use permit has been filed for permission to construct split duplexes--
this will be 148 attached single-family dwellings built on lot sizes of 3500 sq. ft.
with each lot individually owned; the lot line passes through the middle of the duplex.
In the center of the complex will be condominiums or town houses, and private roads
will be constructed within the development. Director Warren spoke of the General Plan
which designates a medium density classification for this property.
He stated that the staff recommends approval of the rezoning of the residential zones
with the "D" zone attached and the request for the C-1 zone be approved as a C-N zone
(neighborhood-commercial). This zone will permit the services of a shopping center
designed to serve the adjacent residential neighborhood as well as the freeway traffic.
-2- 3/17/69
Mr. Warren discussed the major interchange which will be constructed here and the
effect it will have on traffic in this area. He then briefly discussed the need of
additional schools in the area, and commented that any development taking place here
will generate the need for more classrooms, and that this is the primary function of
the School District.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Carmen Pasquale, Executive Vice-President of Gersten Corporation and Otay Land
Company, discussed the requests. He said the new proposal being made by them meets
the Commission's suggestions and recommendations made at the last meeting. They
fully agree with the recommendations of the staff. Mr. Pasquale then introduced his
support staff: Mr. Sweet, Vice-President of Real Estate Research Corporation, an
analyst in housing; Mr. Ron Calhoun, Vice-President of Wilsey & Ham, who will speak
on the terrain, drainage and access; Jerry King, shopping analyst and developer; and
Steven Oppenheim, A.I.A. who has won national awards for his designs on housing.
Mr. Sweet discussed the vacancy factor in Chula Vista. They surveyed 20 relatively
new apartment buildings comprising 2819 units, which were selected as typical of the
type of housing that would probably go into this project, and they found a vacancy
of 2.98% factor; excluding the ones that were built within the last three months,
the vacancy factor was less than 1%. As to the proposed shopping center, it will be
a convenience center specializing in goods and services of daily consumption rather
than the shoppers' goods, such as apparel, house furnishings, etc. Mr. Sweet declared
that there are 6000 families living in the eastern portion of Chula Vista of which
3000 (exclusive of this development) live within a radius of 1 mile of this center.
They interviewed 64 families within one mile of this proposed center and found that
they all shop either on Third Avenue or west of Third Avenue. They also contacted
the owner of the commercially zoned parcel to the east and he had no immediate plans
for development.
Mr. Ron Calhoun spoke of the site relationship to the community and immediate
neighbors; consideration of the goals and desires of the community itself, how they
wish to grow; and the characteristics of the site itself, how best it can be
developed; the economics of alternative land use; and the desires and capabilities
of the applicant himself. There will be a major drainage channel traversing the front
of the property which will be improved by the builder; another cost factor is the
grading for roads and building sites.
Mr. Jerry King stated he has been studying this particular site for six months and
his studies have proved that there is a need for a shopping center in this area due
to the fact that the freeway runs north to south which serves as a barrier to most
traffic. Mr. King submitted a proposed layout of the shopping center indicating it
will be 8 acres, but with slopes, streets, landscaping, etc., it will average out to
5 acres. The center will consist of a super market and satellite stores with a
possible location for a bank.
Mr. Lynds showed slides of other Gersten developments and this proposed one.
Member Stewart asked if they were willing to be committed to the proposed plans.
Mr. Pasquale stated they were, based on any modifications the staff and Commission
may wish to recommend.
-3- 3/17/69
Chairman Hyde questioned who would maintain the park area.
Mr. Pasquale declared it could either be dedicated to the City or they would form
a homeowner's group. The homes would probably sell for $20,000--in that range; this
is for each individual unit.
Mr. Warren noted the petition received by the staff in protest of this request, signed
by 439 residents representing 300 properties.
Speaking in protest were: Frank Meyers, 23 E1 Capitan Drive; J. E. Measelle, 204 East
James Street; Mr. Fred Gelsomini, 650 Gretchen Road; Mrs. Harold Pollard, 436 East
Oxford Street; Mr. Peter L. Coomer, 84 Monte Vista; Mrs. E. Otterhold, 226 Kearney Court;
Mr. Bill Mahin, 797 Monserate Avenue; Mrs. Josephine Schwab, 91E. San Miguel;
Mrs. Lawrence Lassman, 190 East Millan; Mr. Robert Dickenson, 218 East Millan;
Mr. Ken Bell, 195 East Millan; Mr. Paul Whitten, 153 E. E1 Capitan Drive; William
Patten, Los Angeles; Mrs. Barbara Wilson, 135 E. E1 Capitan Drive; Dr. Franklin S.
Glanz, 67 E1Capitan Drive; Robert Mullin, 191 E. Millan and Mr. Art Weigelt, 192 E.
Millan Street.
Their reasons were: (1) it will be a significant departure from the General Plan;
(2) R-3 development will permit a development that will be incompatible with the
adjacent residential use; (3) the area could be developed with single-family residences;
(41 an R-1 development would generate 610 people as compared with 1478 proposed for
this project (figuring it at 3.3 per family); (5) the averabe of 11.5 dwelling units
per acre as proposed by the applicants places this in a high density classification--
the General Plan designates low to medium density for this area; (6) the need has
not been shown for high density use; (7) no need for further commercial zoning in
this area--there are presently approximately 21 acres of commercially zoned land in
the vicinity of the freeway; (7) nothing in the area has changed since the previous
meeting on this subject (January 6, 1969); (8) the applicant will not suffer any
financial loss if the request is denied; (9) they bought in a residential neighborhood
and want it to stay that way; (10) the project will bring on a tremendous increase in
the volume of traffic; (11) if Monserate, Melrose and Nacion were intended for dead
end streets, they would have ended in a cul-de-sac; (12) the vacancy factor is
prevalent all over the country; (12) the project will generate 1500 people - 450 units
with 2 cars for each family will jam the roads and the present residents will not be
able to get through; (13) the schools in the area are filled to capacity now--new
schools would have to be built; (14} if there is a need for low-income housing in this
city, there is no justification that it must be developed in this area; (15) the appli-
cant purchased this land as R-l, and it should be developed as R-l; (16) the area
should be developed as either a park site or hospital; (17) the development will
generate an additional 3% increase in the city's population; (18) an R-1 development
will also yield $100,000 in tax revenue to the city; (19) the rezoning will lower
property values in the adjacent areas; (20) the residents shop where they wish to
shop, and would still prefer to go to a shopping center in town rather than have a
neighborhood center adjacent to them; (21) there is no correlation between the
rezoning requests and the conditional use permit; (22) the Commission should look to
the future and picture these low-cost homes 5 to 10 years from now (compared to
Seaview Estates); (23) no industry will come into an area that offers them only a
clump of low-cost dwellings; (24) there will be plenty of low-cost homes built in
National City and San Diego; (25) it is a federal grant and, in truth, only the
builders will benefit by it; (26) the development will be a detriment to Chula Vista;
(27) the question of sewer and water for this area--it may bring on added taxes;
{28) the Commission should listen to the will of the people and deny the request.
-4- 3/17/69
Mr. Pasquale explained the government subsidy for financing this project. The
subsidy is on the interest alone, not on the consturction, and will be geared to
the people in the $10,000 income bracket. If you are a home buyer, you can pay
as low as 1% interest on your house and the government would then pay the subsidy
to the bank for the difference. If you are a renter, the rent could be based on
as low as 1%, and the difference between the market rate will be paid by the
government to the bank to make up the difference of payment--the builder gets
nothing. The government decides who is entitled to it.
In answer to Chairman Hyde's inquiry, Mr. Pasquale stated they could not develop
the area as R-l, because the cost of the homes would be prohibitive.
City Attorney Lindberg commented that the question here was one of land use and not
one of excluding the lower income people. The Commission cannot dictate the cost
of the houses or the income of the family that will live in it.
Director Warren explained that there is a main sewer passing through Telegraph
Canyon Road that could take care of this project. As to the water rates, this
has not been discussed with the water company, but the rates will not affect the
adjacent property owners.
Mr. Calhoun declared the project will bring in 1217 people, not the 1500 people as
predicted by some of the protestants.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
Member Adams suggested a postponement until the next meeting which would give the
Commission time to think about this.
Member Putnam disagreed, stating he feels the applicant and the people here tonight
should have the decision of the Commission. He personally feels there has not been
sufficient change in this area to justify changing their original decision.
MS (Adams-Stewart) Postpone further discussion and a decision on this matter to the
next meeting.
The motion failed to carry by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Members Adams, Stewart
NOES: Members Putnam, Macevicz, Chandler, and Hyde
ABSENT: Member Rice
Member Adams felt there was a substantial change, and that he feels better about
this particular proposal than he did the last one. The split duplex is a new concept
and the Commission has never been very enthusiastic about it. An ordinance was
recommended by them for this type of development but it should be put in less desir-
able locations. As a compromise, they could develop standard single-family lots on
the upper tier of the land.
Member Chandler disagreed, declaring this particular use would be incompatible in
this area.
-5- 3/17/69
Member Macevicz indicated the area should stay R-l, since the developers purchased
it as R-1.
Chairman Hyde remarked it was a matter of density--even with this plan they still
end up with a density he finds incompatible. He mentioned a planned unit develop-
ment and spoke of the 25% bonus which the developer can get.
In answer to Member Adams' inquiry, Mr. Pasquale indicated his company has not
considered abandoning the split duplex concept in favor of single-family residential
development with a Planned Unit Development.
Mr. Oppenheim discussed the topographical problem in this area, and commented that
they would like to get an idea of what is possible there.
Mr. Warren explained the planned unit development procedure.
MSUC (Chandler-Putnam) Rezoning ~o R-2 and R-3-B-3-D be denied based on the following
reasons:
1. This request is not substantially different from that previously denied by the
Commission, and since no conditions have changed, the Commission believes the findings
for denial previously made are still valid.
2. The Commission believes the existing zoning of R-1 is appropriate for the area,
but they would consider approval of a development under the Planned Unit Development
provisions.
3. Rezoning to R-3 would permit a density of housing units not contemplated in the
General Plan. There was no demonstration of need of high-density residential use in
this vicinity beyond that for which zoning already exists.
4. R-3 zoning would permit development which would be incompatible with adjacent
single-family use.
5. R-2 zoning, as proposed to accommodate the split duplex concept, would permit
development at a density incompatible with that of adjacent single-family use.
MSUC (Putnam-Chandler) Rezoning to C-1 be denied for the following reasons:
1. There are presently approximately 21 acres of commercially zoned land in the
vicinity of the proposed freeway interchange, only 2 acres of which are developed.
The General Plan reflects only the need for "neighborhood" shopping facilities in
this vicinity; thus additional zoning cannot be justified.
2. Additional commercial zoning in this area would generate traffic from the freeway
that would be detrimental to the adjacent single-family use.
MSUC (Adams-Chandler) Denial of the conditional use permit based on the fact that
since the Commission denied the underlying zone which would make it possible to
utilize this use, it would not be desirable to grant this request.
The Chairman advised the applicants of their right to appeal this decision to the
City Council within l0 days.
-6- 3/17/69
PUBLIC HEARING - Rezonin~ ~ 380 K Street and rear portion of 819 Fourth Avenue -
from R-1 to R-3 aha'reduction of setback from 20' to 15' - M. Ba~nell
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the property in question,
the adjacent land use and zoning. The applicant is requesting rezoning to R-3 and
also a reduction in setback on "K" Street from 20 feet to 15 feet. The portion of
the property on Fourth Avenue is improved with a six-unit apartment building which
was permitted by variance in 1961. The staff recommends approval of the request
with the attachment of the "D" zone. Mr. Warren then reviewed the findings for the
approval recommendation.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mrs. Madalon Bagnell, the applicant, stated she wants to build on this property, but
cannot do so without the rezoning to R-3.
The Commission discussed the probable access points. Mrs. Bagnell claimed she had
sufficient width on both K Street and Fourth Avenue to provide access.
There being no further comment either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
The Commission concurred that the request was reasonable.
MSUC (Adams-Chandler) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to
RESOLUTION NO. 562 City Council the Change of Zone to R-3-D for Property at
380 K Street and the Rear Portion of 819 Fourth Avenue
Findings be as follows:
1. The front setback on K Street shall be established at 15 feet.
2. R-3-D zoning presently exists north and east of the subject property.
3. A variance was previously approved for the construction of multiple family
dwellings on the subject property.
4. Multiple family dwellings exist on three sides of the subject property.
5. A 15' setback presently exists on the easterly aubtting property.
6. A 15' setback is the standard set by the new zoning ordinance for R-3 property
on local streets.
PUBLIC HEARING - Rezonin~ - Northwest corner of Broadway and H Street - from C-2 and
R-3 to C-2-D - Lawrence Worchell
Associate Planner Manganelli submitted a plot plan noting the area in question, the
adjacent land use and zoning. He noted the property requested for the rezoning by
the applicant and stated the rest of the property was added to this hearing by the
staff for the attachment of the "D" zone. The property involves approximately 6~
acres of land (600' of H Street frontage and 475' on Broadway). The applicant is
proposing to construct a shopping center on this site, and because the staff had
some reservations around a possible piecemeal development of the property, they are
recommending the attachment of the "D" zone with certain guidelines, which would
incorporate the entire parcel of property.
-7- 3/17/69
City Attorney Lindberg indicated there was no problem in implementing this condition.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Lawrence Worchell, the applicant, agreed that problems could arise if the property
was developed in a piecemeal fashion, and therefore, agrees with the staff on the
placement of the "D" zone. He asked how detailed the required plot plan must be.
Director Warren said it could be a schematic plan.
There be~Bg no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
Member Macevicz questioned the uses presently fronting on Broadway.
Chairman Hyde explained that these businesses will remain--the car wash, service
station and office are under the control of the applicant and are a part of his
shopping center proposal.
MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending
RESOLUTION NO. 563 to City Council the Change of Zone to C-2-D for the
Northwest Corner of Broadway and H Street
Findings be as follows:
a. The increased commercial depth is needed to properly accommodate sound
commercial development in this area.
b. Approval of this request will serve the purpose of substituting an incompatible
use (trailer park) for one that is harmonious with the area.
PUBLIC HEARING - Variance - 282 Madrona Street - Reduction of required parking spaces - Bettye L. Peters
Associate Planner Manganelli submitted a plot plan noting the location of the
applicant's property, the adjacent land use and zoning. The property involves two
parcels: one zoned R-3 and the other recently recommended for R-3 zoning from C-2,
which is now before the Council. The applicant proposes to construct a 19 unit
apartment building on the property providing 24 parking spaces--the ordinance requires
29 spaces. The lot to the west is a parking lot which the applicant plans on using
for his overflow parking. The staff recommends approval of the request subject to
certain conditions.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. J. D. Peters, representing the applicant, discussed the fact that one of the
lots is in the parking district. Because of this, they tried to equalize the
parking ratio by making it l~ spaces instead of the required 1~. Mr. Peters added
that they are in agreement with the conditions as proposed by the staff.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
-8- 3/17/69
MSUC (Putnam-Chandler) Approval of the variance request subject to the following
conditions:
1. The plan shall be revised so the driveway is not in conflict with the telephone
pole and guy line on Madrona Street.
2. The parkway area and front setback shall be landscaped subject to approval of
the City's Landscape Architect. Plans to be approved prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
3. Elevations and color schemes shall be submitted for staff approval.
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 City has granted variances to other residential structures within the
parking district.
b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions a@plicable 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 is located in the parking district and adjacent to a 43 space parking
lot.
c. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such zone or neighborhood in
which the property is located.
The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to neighboring property as there is a public parking lot for any guest
parking.
d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the
General Plan.
The General Plan would not be affected by this variance.
PUBLIC HEARING - Conditional Use Permit - ll5 North Glover Street - Manufacturing
plant in M-l-F-2 - Christensen Construction Corporation
Associate Planner Manganelli submitted a plot plan noting the property in question.
He cited also the adjacent land use and zoning. The property measures 56' X 352'
and is in the 100 year flood zone. The applicant has an existing building on this
property to which he proposed an addition. The addition will be for the manufacture
of parts and assembly of dune buggies. The staff recommends approval of the request
subject to the conditions normally imposed in the flood zone.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
-9- 3/17/69
Mr. Christensen, the applicant, stated he was aware of the conditions imposed by the
staff and will adhere to them.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
The Commission concurred the approval of this request with the conditions imposed
would result in compliance with the Code, and therefore, it should be approved.
MSUC (Adams-Macevicz) Approval of the conditional use permit subject to the following
conditions:
1. Any floatable material shall be confined to within the building.
2. The constructed building shall be able to withstand inundation by water and velocities
expected in the area, as determined by the City Engineer.
Findings be as follows:
a. That the propsoed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to
provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well-being of the
neighborhood or the community.
Similar uses have been approved for the area without any effect on the community.
b. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working
in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
The conditions imposed by the Engineering Division will prohibit possible damage
to other properties in the area.
c. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified
in the Code for such use.
The plans as submitted and the conditions imposed would result in the compliance
of all applicable code regulations.
d. That the granting of this conditional use will not adversely affect the General
Plan of the City of Chula Vista or the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
The General Plan will not be affected by this proposal.
PUBLIC HEARING - Conditional Use Permit - 422 East Oxford Street - Use of dwellin~
for church"purposes - Church of the Bible of Chula Vista
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the dwelling,
the adjacent land use and zoning. He explained that this was a single-family dwelling
for which the applicant is requesting permission to use for church purposes. There
are presently nine members in this congregation; and they indicate they are planning
to build a permanent structure at a later date. The Commission has always considered
temporary church buildings a problem, but some have been approved in the past where
there was adequate space around the site so that it would not affect any adjoining
uses. The staff feels this would be an encroachment upon the residential use. In
their application, they state they can provide 10 parking spaces in the rear yard;
however, the staff points out that no access is possible to the rear yard at this
-lO- 3/17/69
time. There is a strip of excess property, 15 feet wide, which exists between the
freeway and this parcel which could be used to gain access to the rear of this lot;
however, unless tandem parking were allowed, the applicants could not design any
logical parking arrangement for the rear of property.
The staff recommends denial of the request.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Griff Davies, 426 East Oxford Street, stated he was against the request as it
would generate more traffic. The children cross over this area on their way to
school and use the vacant strip as a play area.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
MSUC (Adams-Chandler) Request be denied based on the following reasons:
a. A church at this location is not necessary to provide a service to the
neighborhood since several permanent churches exist in the area.
b. This use would be detrimental to property in the area by using curb parking for
church service.
c. The proposed use cannot comply with the parking regulations specified in the code.
d. The General Plan suggests that a permanentchurch have a minimum site of 1~ acres,
located on a collector or major street.
The applicant was advised of his right to appeal this decision to the City Council
within 10 days.
Architectural approval - 800 block of Third Avenue - Apartments - Creaser & Warwick
Director of Planning Warren explained that this property was re~oned to R-3-D in July,
1968. Under this zone, the applicants were given certain guidelines for the develop-
ment of their apartment complex; they have now submitted these plans to the Commission
for approval. It shows 108 units housed in 12 two-story buildings with 89 covered and
102 open parking spaces; the ordinance requires 162 spaces.
Mr. Warren noted the location of the trash area at the southwest corner commenting
that there has been some concern about this, and asked that it be relocated and left
up to the staff for approval. The planting strip on the west side is shown as 3 feet
with a wall along the entire property line; this wall will serve as a buffer to the
adjacent use. However, the narrow strip left would not be adequate to plant trees,
and the staff would like the opportunity of investig&ting this with the developer.
The access to the developer will be off Third Avenue--this will be 50' wide. The
staff recommends approval subject to having the alterations to the plan submitted to
staff for approval, plus the approval of landscaping and color schemes.
-ll- 3/17/69
Mr. Phil Creaser, the applicant, discussed the access to the development declaring
he had a lot of money tied up in the project and this access is vital--that is why
he is putting a 50 foot dividing road in there which is more than a normal City
street.
Member Macevicz asked if there would be any children in this complex.
Mr. Creaser indicated that it was his plan to rent to adults. He then discussed the
com~nercial frontage on Third Avenue commenting that they will be very selective in
their choice of commercial uses--that this has to be compatible with the development.
The development is a patio-type one. They do intend to have a landscaped area in
the rear, and will review this with the staff.
MSUC (Chandler-Putnam) Approval of the plans subject to the follow~ng conditions:
1. Any alterations to the plan shall be submitted to the staff for approval.
2. Final color schemes and materials shall be submitted to the staff for approval.
3. Landscape and irrigation plans, including the entrance drive, shall be submitted
to the staff for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
4. The access road from Third Avenue into the development shall be 50 feet wide and
improved to paving specifications as required by the Division of Engineering.
5. The developers consider with the staff, the widening of the planting strip along
the westerly property line.
Architectural approval - Four dwellings - Bonita Verde Subdivision
Director of Planning submitted the building elevations for the four proposed dwellings
to be constructed in the Bonita Verde Subdivision: Lot #1 on 4020 Troon Way; Lot #2 -
4030 Troon Way; Lot #22 - 3633 Bonita Verde Drive; and Lot #40 - 3570 Yerba Lane.
Member Chandler challenged the plans declaring two of the plans are identical. He
remarked that the subdivision consisted of custom built homes and there are no two
homes alike; this is against their deed restrictions.
Director Warren commented that there is no basis for the Commission to deny the
plans--this matter should be passed on to the architectural committee of the subdivision
since it is against their deed restrictions.
The Commission concurred.
MSC (Adams-Macevicz) Architectural approval of the building plans for the four
proposed dwellings.
The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Members Adams, Macevicz, Putnam, Stewart and Hyde
NOES: Member Chandler
ABSENT: Member Rice
-12- 3/17/69
Approval of Sign - 10 Third Avenue - Royal Thrift Bakery
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the bakery
stating this is in a C-l-D zone. He explained that the applicant is proposing to
replace his existing flush sign attached to the facade above the parapet with a new
4' x 12' interior illuminated plastic sign. The staff believes the sign should
remain even with the roof line and this same area could be maintained by increasing
the sign's length. Mr. Warren then discussed the window signs. The staff recommends
approval of the request subject to conditions.
Mr. Larry Davis, representing the applicant, stated they have no objection to moving
the sign down, nor in removing the window signs. They would like to maintain the
"A" frame sign, if possible, for a period of one year, because the applicant is new
to the area and would like to become established.
MSUC (Putnam-Adams) Approval of the request subject to the following:
1. The sign shall be non-flashing, attached flush against the building,and shall
not extend above the roof line.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following signs shall be removed:
a. The freestanding '~A" frame located adjacent to the sidewalk.
b. All window signs, with the exception of the allowable 10% of the window area.
Request for extension of time - 370 E Street - J~ Pugh
Director of Planning Warren stated Mr. Pugh is asking for an extension of time on
the variance granted him in September, 1968, for a reduction of the required number
of parking spaces for the expansion of his market. The staff recommends approval
of the extension.
MSUC (Chandler-Adams) Approval of the request for extension of time; subject
variance will now expire on March 23, 1970.
Deferment of public improvements - Rohr Corporation
Director of Planning Warren noted the location of the requested deferments of public
improvements. He stated the staff agrees with the recommendations of the Engineering
Division.
City Attorney Lindberg explained the request stating that the City will work out an
agreement with Rohr on this. The matter of improvements in these tidelands areas is
different from commercial areas, and the City may want to take more participation in
this.
Mr. Ken Wood, representing Rohr Corporation, concurred with Mr. Lindberg's comments
in establishing a policy with Chula Vista for this area. Specifically, he added,
the recommendations as to Tidelands Avenue and G Street are acceptable to them.
-13- 3/17/69
Member Chandler asked if he should abstain from the proceedings since he works
for Rohr Corporation.
City Attorney Lindberg stated he doesn't have to since his position in the company
is so far removed from this request.
MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) Approval of the recommendation for deferment of the following
public improvements:
Curb and gutter on "H" Street
Sidewalk on "H" and "G" Streets
Close abandoned driveways on "G~' Street
Street shoulder paving on "H" Street
To be set for hearing - Amendment to Zoning Ordinance - Gross density provision
in the supplemental B Zones
Director of Planning Warren explained that this provision is being set up, at the
request of the Commission, to make the gross density provision discretionary on the
part of the Commission rather than permissive to the subdivider.
MSUC (Putnam-Chandler) Public hearing to be set for April 7, 1969, to consider
this amendment.
To be set for hearing - Amendment to Zoning Ordinance - Regulating height of signs
in commercial and industrial zones
Director of Planning Warren explained that an emergency ordinance was adopted on
this provision by the Council in February 1969. This is good for 90 days, and
now a hearing must be set in order to make these provisions permanent.
MSUC (Chandler-Putnam) Public hearing on this amendment be set for April 7, 1969.
Discussion - Garage requirement in the R-1 zones
Director of Planning Warren asked that this item be deferred to the next meeting,
March 24, 1969.
League of California Dinner !qeeting
The next meeting will be held on Friday, March 21, 1969 at the San Marcos Country
Club. The Commissioners were asked to contact the Secretary for reservations.
Slide Lecture by Friends of the Library
Director Warren noted that the Chula Vista Friends of the Library will be presenting
L. L. Ruocco, A.I.A. who will give a slide lecture on community planning and
beautification, on Sunday afternoon, March 23, at 2 p.m. in the First Federal
Savings & Loan Association Community Room, 595 H Street, Chula Vista. He asked all
Commissioners to attend, if possible.
-14- 3/17/69
ADJOURNMENT
MSUC (Chandler-Stewart) Meeting be adjourned to the next meeting of March 19, 1969,
and the meeting of March 24, 1969. The meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m.
- Respectfully submitted,
¥. ennie M. Fulasz
Secretary