Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1969/01/06 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA January 6, 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, Stewart, York, Chandler, Rice, Adams, and Putnam. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, Junior Planner Liuag, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Adams-York) Minutes of the meeting of December 16, 1968, be approved as mailed. Rezoning (Cont'd) - Property along north side of Telegraph Canyon Road between Hilltop Drive and Interstate 805 from R-1 to R-3 and C-1 Otay Land Company Chairman Hyde explained that the public hearing on this matter was closed at the last meeting (December 16, 1968). He asked Mr. Warren, the Director of Planning, to review the matter. Mr. Warren submitted a plot plan of the area noting the location of the property, the adjacent land use and zoning. The area involves 47.4 acres, with R-3 zoning requested for 39 acres and C-1 zoning for 8 acres. The staff is recommending R-3-B-2-D and C-1-D zoning. Chairman Hyde asked how much commercially zoned land there is to the east of this area in the county. Director Warren indicated it was 5 or 10 acres. Member Stewart discussed other developments comparable to that proposed. Although he commented he would rather see a planned unit development here, he feels that these narrow canyons lend themselves well to a multiple-family development, and in this respec~ he agrees with the staff's recommendations. Member York agreed and declared that there were three major areas of dissatis- faction from the people testifying at the last hearing: (1) schools - this is not a proper consideration of zoning as pointed out in the staff's comments; (2) lack of need - there is no question of the need for the additional R-3 zoning in the City--the only question is, where to put it; (3) additional park sites - there is a need for this and this area may make a good site; however, this is not the matter to be decided by this body. If the people desire a park site here, they should refer it to the proper legislative body. The owners of the property have indicated they would be willing to sell it for a park site. Member Adams stated that 600-800 multiple-family units is too many for this area. It is surrounded by $25,000 to $35,000 homes, and to put in this many low-cost apartments would be poor planning. He would perhaps be in favor of the project if it were one-half the size. He added the site could be developed for single-family residences with no more difficulty than any other land in the City. He discussed the National City project constructed by the applicant which he indicated was a good one; however, it was in a neighborhood of older, -2- 1/6/69 low-priced homes and in that area, it fits perfectly; also there are fewer units than proposed for this site. Member Chandler agreed with Member Adams' remarks adding that the project would perhaps be better suited if it was proposed for the land further east. Member Rice commented that although high density may be compatible with single- family areas, he is apprehensive about having high-density developments go on for blocks and blocks, and miles and miles. He felt multiple-family projects should blend into areas such as a small area of R-3 next to an R-1 zoned area. He discussed the abundant amount of R-3 zoned land in this area waiting to be developed and added that he could not reconcile in his own mind adding another 39 solid acres of R-3 zoning. Member Putnam stated he is abstaining from the discussion and decision inasmuch as he has not had a chance to study the entire transcript of the matter. Chairman Hyde stated this is one of the most important decisions, that will be made by the Commission. He stated he would oppose the request for the following reasons: (1) It's a serious departure from the General Plan and no clear-cut justification has been established for the need for the additional R-3 zoning; (2) there is already over 20 acres of R-3 land situated within 3/4 of a mile from this location, some of it directly across the street; (3) it would be contrary to the policies established in the General Plan -- the open space and canyon concepts as described in the General Plan; (4) it would increase the City's commercial land even though the General Plan states that they should adopt a conservative policy concerning future commercial zoning in the City (the General Plan calls for C-N zone for 5 to 7 acres in the area of the 805 Interchange and Telegraph Canyon Road--they have exceeded this amount of land where it is now about 15 acres with another 5 to 7 acres of commercially zoned land in the county, this makes it a net of 23 to 25 acres at that interchange); (5) it would only serve to introduce additional traffic into the area which would be conducive to destroying the R-1 character; (6) it would encourage high density development on the rough hilly terrains whereas the General Plan states that the difficult topography should be developed at lower densities and care should be taken in the design of these residential areas to preserve the natural amenities that make Chula Vista a nice place to live--approval of this request would be the exact opposite of what the General Plan calls for; (7) he favors a mixture of R-3 units in appropriate numbers in the R-1 areas; however, to zone 39 acres for high density development in this area is unjustified, uncalled for, and would be obstructive to the property values in an established character of one of Chula Vista's finest regions; (8) approval of the request would seriously undermine the importance and confidence in the General Plan and the Commission would have difficulty in denying future similar requests for departure from the General Plan. Member York stated the General Plan was outdated some four years ago and indicated that the Chairman was placing reliance upon something he no longer had any confidence in. -3- 1/6/69 Chairman Hyde agreed that the Plan needed revising, but added that the purpose of the General Plan was to plan ahead on a long range planning atmosphere devoid of pressures of burgeoning growth. Mr. Hyde added that if the Plan is bad, they should change it, and since they haven't changed it up to now, they should stick to it. The Commission discussed the General Plan. Member Stewart felt it would be a misconception to take the Plan for a hard fast rule since it is a guide and should be reviewed annually. Member Rice remarked that because the Plan does need revising is no reason why they should not follow its goals. Mr. Bob Lynds, representing Gersten Construction Company, made the following statements to an inquiry from Member York: (1) the form of government aid they will be receiving for this project is 3% interest paid on the loan instead of the conventional 8%; (2) the income limitations imposed by the government would be $5800 to $10,000 a year depending on the size of the apartment; (3) it would be a 30-year mortgage. Member Putnam asked if the applicant stated at the last meeting that he would go ahead and develop the area in single-family units if the rezoning was not approved. Mr. Lynds clarified his statement that annexation of their remaining land was not contingent upon this rezoning. He said it would not be economically feasible for them to develop this land for single-family use. He discussed the drainage ditch which would cost over one-quarter of a million dollars to develop. Mr. Gesley noted the proposed ditch on the map. Director Warren remarked that the applicant has requested the motions for the rezoning for both zones be taken separately. MS (York-Stewart) Approval of the request for rezoning to R-3-B-2-D in accordance with the staff comments and findings. The motion failed to carry by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members York and Stewart NOES: Members Chandler, Hyde, Rice, Adams ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Member Putnam MSC (Adams-Chandler) the request for C-1 zoning 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. -4- 1/6/69 The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Adams, Chandler, Stewart, Hyde, Rice NOES: Member York ABSENT: None ABSTAIN Member Putnam PUBLIC HEARING - Chan~e of Front Setback between D and Flower Streets; Woodlawn, Oaklawn~ Jefferson and Madison Avenues - 25 feet to 15 feet - Commission initiated Director of Planning Warren explained that this matter is before the Commission as a result of the approval of a variance for a reduction of front yard setback from 25 feet to 15 feet at 126 Jefferson Street. This was appealed to the Council but a decision has not been made. The Council referred this matter to the Commis- sion with a request to consider the entire area of the 100 blocks of Woodlawn, Oaklawn, Jefferson, and Madison Avenues north of Flower Street. The staff has recommended approval of the request; however, a petition has been received containing 59 signatures representing 47 property owners opposing the change. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Clarence Knight, 117 Jefferson Street, stated he was one of the persons that circulated that petition. He discussed the area and the condition of the homes commenting that most of them will be good for at least another 20 years. It is predominately a single-family residential area and they wish it to remain that way. Mr. Knight questioned the ordinance regarding the building line map. Mr. Warren explained that the setbacks in the City are governed by the map instead of by ordinance, which tends to be confusing at times. We have the provision in the proposed ordinance that any R-3 property would have a 15 foot setback and any other property existing would be guided by the setback map. Mr. Warren then discussed a study made by the staff of the setbacks in the central part of the City which proposes that the setbacks be changed in many of the older residential parts of the City. Mr. and Mrs. Dunseith, 655 D Street, spoke in opposStion to the request especially to having a building protrude l0 feet further into the street than their homes do. She also objected to multiple-family development in this area. Mr. Warren explained that the area was zoned R-3 and anyone who acquired it could build it as such. If the people wished to have it remain in a single-family residential use, they should request a rezoning for this. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was closed. Member Rice questioned whether the people fully realized what is being proposed here. He discussed off-street parking and the need for the setback reduction especially in the R-3 zones. He added it was much more architecturally pleasing to have staggered setbacks instead of one straight row of homes down an entire block. -5- 1-6-69 Member York compared the Flower Street proposal with this area. He felt the Commission should recommend the setback which was good for the existing zoning. Member Stewart commented that with their present setback, it would reduce the value of their properties if and when they wanted to sell. MSC (York-Adams) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to City Council the Change of Setback from 25 feet to 15 feet RESOLUTION NO. 551 for those properties between "D~ and Flower Streets; Woodlawn, Oaklawn, Jefferson and Madison Avenues Findings be as follows: a. The area, while in generally fair condition, is approaching the point where redevelopment on a piece-meal basis is imminent--it was originally subdivided in 1911 and sporadically developed thereafter. b. The new zoning ordinance, as proposed, designates 15 feet as the front yard standard for R-3 development on local streets wherever newly applied. The area is presently zoned R-3, but existing setbacks do not permit reasonable use of the land. c. These streets are all 60 feet wide and are improved with 36 feet of pavement _ (except for Madison which has 30 feet of pavement)--the present street standard is 51 feet, 36 feet of which is pavement. Therefore, these streets have an extra 4-1/2 feet on each side (7-1/2 for Madison) from the curb to the property line for additional setback from the street. d. Some of the open space which should be reserved for the interior of an apartment project to create environmental amenities would otherwise have to be assisgned to the front yard. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members York, Adams, Rice, Putnam NOES: Members Stewart, Chandler, Hyde ABSENT: None PBBLIC HEARING - Change of Front Setback east side of Fifth Avenue north of D Street - 25 feet to 15 feet - H. E. & Sarah Been Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan of the area noting the location of the properties in question. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. H. E. Been, the applicant, stated he received the signatures of all the property owners involved in this request (four properties). There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. -6- 1/6/69 The Commission briefly discussed the request indicating they agree with the staff's recommendations. MSUC (Adams-Ri ce) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to City Council the Change of Setback for those Properties RESOLUTION NO. 552 on the East Side of Fifth Avenue between D Street and the southerly property line of General Roca Park Findings be as follows: a. A 15 foot setback is usually assigned to any areas newly zoned R-3 on local streets. Fifth Avenue north of E Street carm~es about the same amount of traffic as a local street and should be classified as such. b. This street is 80 feet wide and improved with 40 feet of pavement--the present street standard for local streets i$ 51 feet, 36 feet of which is pavement. Therefore, these lots have an extra 20 feet from the curb to the property line for additional setback from the street. c. Some of the open space which should be reserved for the interior of an apartment project to create environmental amenities would have to be assigned to the front yard. d. The parcels directly across the street from the subject parcels have 10 foot setbacks. PUBLIC HEARING - Rezoning - North of K Street~ 133 feet east of Fourth Avenue - R-1 to R-3 - Lawrence Kuebler PUBLIC HEARING - Variance - North of K Street~ 133 feet east of Fourth Avenue - Reduction in rear setback - 15 feet to 5 feet - L. Kuebler The Commission requested that these two items be taken together. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the property in question, the adjacent land use and zoning. The applicant is requesting a change of zone from R-1 to R-3 on .54 acre of vacant land. At one hearing, this particular property was deleted from being rezoned along with the rest of the property in this vicinity at the owner's request. Mr. Warren noted a letter received from Mr. R. B. Buffington requesting that the lots east of Fourth Avenue be also included in the change. The staff is recommending that the request be approved to R-3-D and that the front setback be changed to 15 feet. Director Warren noted the plot plan of the proposed development explaining that the applicant is requesting a reduction in rear yard setback from 15 feet to 5 feet. This is actually a side yard for the developed units on the adjoining lot which extend along the entire lot line 5 feet from the property line. Mr. Warren then reviewed the conditions of approval. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Lawrence Kuebler, the applicant, stated he had nothing to add to the staff's comments. As to the three parking spaces pointed out by the Director as not being acceptable, he stated he talked to Mr. Lee (Assistant Planner) about this -7- 1/6/69 and they have reached no solution. He will change the parking layout according to the staff's recommendations. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Rice stated the Commission should impose the "D" zone in order to assure compatibility with the surrounding area. MSUC (Rice-York) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to City Council the Change of Zone from R-1 to R-3-D for RESOLUTION NO. 553 property north of K Street, 133 feet east of Fourth Avenue Findings be as follows: a. While the General Plan designates the entire "K" Street frontage between Third and Fourth Avenues as medium density residential, in making closer studies of individual areas of the City, both the consultants and the staff have concluded that the General Plan and the zoning map should be altered to reflect a high density residential (R-3) classification in this area. b. In recognition of the above, the Planning Commission and City Council approved rezonings to R-3 on abutting parcels as well as another on the south side of "K" Street in the vicinity of the subject property. Chairman Hyde opened the public hearing for the variance request. Mr. Lawrence Kuebler, the applicant, explained that the request for the reduction of setback was not to increase the units but to enlarge the apartments. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. MSUC (Rice-York) Approval of the variance request subject to the following conditions: 1. A preliminary site plan being approved by the Planning Department prior to submission of actual construction plans to the Building Department. 2. A preliminary landscaping plan for the front setback area shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 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. (1) The rear lot line abuts the side lot line of the adjoining lot to the north, thus requiring a 15 foot setback on one lot and a 5 foot setback on the other. (2) 10% allowance for compact spaces has been granted to numerous apartments in the area and is contemplated in the proposed new zoning ordinance. -8- 1/6/69 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. (1) The area normally used for rear yard separation can better be utilized within the project. (2) The new zoning ordinance provides a 10% allowance for compact spaces. 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. (1) Granting the variance will not be detrimental since the adjoining lot enjoys a similar setback as the proposed application. (2) Other apartment units in the area enjoy the same type variance. 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 variance. PUBLIC HEARING - Variance - 525 Hibiscus Court - 5 foot high fence in front setback - Lsnn ChristS Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan of the area involved noting the location of the property in question and the proposed location for the fence. The applicant has a single-family dwelling on a corner lot adjacent to the cul- de-sac on Hibiscus Court. He proposes to construct a fence along the retaining wall in order to gain privacy for his rear yard. Mr. Warren commented on the size and shape of this lot stating it was not a good lot and the Commission should look twice at future subdivision maps in order to eliminate any such lots. The staff recommends approval subject to the design of the fence being submitted for approval and being constructed with masonry pillars of a decorative design spaced 15 feet apart. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Lynn Christy, the applicant, stated he has an odd situation here and would like to see his request granted. The retaining wall is from 2 feet to 3-1/2 feet high. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Rice remarked that this particular lot should never have been allowed to be developed in this manner. The applicant's privacy will only be violated by pedestrians crossing the street; however, because it is a cul-de-sac, and if the neighbors do not object, then he felt it should be allowed. A condition should be imposed that the fence be maintained. -9- 1/6/69 Member York compared this situation with one granted for Bonita Cove and added he could see nothing objectionable about it. MSUC (Stewart-Chandler) Approval of the variance request subject to the following conditions: 1. The fence design shall be submitted for staff approval and shall utilize stone or masonry pillars of a decorative design spaced a minimum of 15 feet apart. 2. The fence shall be kept in good repair 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. Strict application would not provide a privacy for the occupants and would expose trash cans, garden tools, etc., to public view on a continual basis. 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 lot is designed so that three sides of the parcel face streets, with a portion of the northern side being the required rear yard. In addition the rear yard area is below street level and the variance is needed for privacy and safety. 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 fence will be set back 60 feet from the curb return and will not be adjacent to any driveways. 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 - Conditional Use Permit - 376 Trousdale Street - Construction in C-2-F-2 Zone - Ralph R. Giddin§s~ M.D. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location and adjacent land use. The applicant proposes to construct a building for the repair of small boats. It is in the supplemental F-2 (flood) zone and subject to the conditions that any floatable material be confined to the building and the building must be able to withstand inundation by water and velocities expected in the area. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hea~ing was opened. Mr. C. C. Alley, realtor representing the applicant, 779 Third Avenue, stated it would not be possible to have all the boats inside the building--there will be a number of them outside the building. The applicant does propose to erect -10- 1/6/69 a chain link fence around the property within which the boats will be confined. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, stated the purpose of the condition was that all the floatable material would not get into places plugging up ditches, bridges, etc., in case of a flood. Mr. Warren commented that once the flood control channel is constructed, these conditions will be eliminated. The Commission discussed the condition and agreed that the boats should be secured in such a manner that they would not be able to float away in case of flood. MSUC (York-Adams) Conditional use permit be approved subject to the following conditions: t. Any floatable material shall be confined to within the building or secured in such a way that it will not be able to float away in case of flood. 2. The constructed building shall be able to withstand inundation by water and velocities expected in the area. Findings be as follows: a. That the proposed 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 ~he 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 compli- ance 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 agendy. The General Plan will not be affected. -ll- 1/6/69 SUBDIVISION - Tentative Map - Ftair Subdivision, Unit #5 Director of Planning Warren submitted the tentative map of Unit 5 stating that it contains 18 single-family lots on four acres of land. The subdivision is located north of Orange Avenue and east of the proposed 805 freeway, with Lantana Avenue presently terminating at the westerly end of the subdivision. The staff recommends approval subject to Engineering conditions. M~. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, discussed the width of Poinsettia Street. It was 46 feet of right-of-way and on December 3, 1968, the Council established 51 feet as the width. Their recommendation is to leave it at 46 feet because of the shallow lots (90'). MSUC (Chandler-Rice) Approval of the tentative map subject to the following conditions: 1. The subdivision boundary shall be tied to the Lambert Projection for California Coordinate System, Zone VI. This shall be accomplished by tying the subdivision boundary to a minimum of two established horizontal control monuments on file in the office of the City Engineer. 2. A one foot control lot will be required at the southerly terminus of Carissa Avenue. 3. A cul-de-sac shall be constructed at the southerly terminus of Carissa Avenue, as per Resolution No. 4563 of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista. 4. The sewer in Poinsettia Avenue shall be constructed without any angle points. It shall be constructed due east to the existing sewer. The sewer easement shall be 12 feet in length. 5. The right-of-way width of Poinsettia Street may be 46 feet wide which varies from the standards adopted by your honorable body. This is recommended because all other local streets in this subdivision utilize a 46 foot right- of-way and the additional four feet would cause already shallow lots to be more SO. SUBDIVISION (Cont'd) Tentative Map - Holiday Estates Units 5 and 6 Director of Planning Warren stated they would be considering Unit 5 only. The conditional use permit and rezoning action on this property previously approved by the Commission did not include Unit 6. Unit 5 would involve separating the area into 3500 square foot lots for split duplexes. Director Warren spoke of the proposed improvement of Orange Avenue which bisects this subdivision and noted First Avenue which is not extended through. The staff feels there is no need to extend First Avenue and, therefore, this street would be ending in a cul-de- sac. The staff and the subdivider have not solved the problem of the location of the proposed fencing along Orange Avenue. The subdivider proposes to erect a 6 foot high grapestake fence and the staff is recommending a 5 foot high masonry wall. Mr. Warren then proceeded to review the recommendations of the staff. -12- 1/6/69 Mr. John Morgan, the subdivider, stated they are in agreement with most of the conditions. The only one they do not agree on is the location of the fences along Orange Avenue. Member Rice commented that he was concerned about the extension of First Avenue. The City has always carried the major streets through and he felt this street should run through to Orange Avenue. Director Warren explained that First Avenue would take on a local street classif- ication. He defined local, collector and major streets. The Commission discussed the proposed construction of the fence and the problems encountered with erecting it at the top of the slope and at the bottom of the slope. Member Stewart suggested they leave this condition to the staff for a solution. MSUC (York-Stewart) Approval of the tentative map of Holiday Estates Unit 5 subject to the following conditions: 1. Any lots containing less than 3,500 sq. ft. shall be increased in size. 2. Lots 258 and 259 shall be shifted south to allow for the park entrance directly south of lot 257. 3. The dedicated open space shall be treated with a combination of walkway and landscaping with sprinkler system installed by the developer to be approved by the Planning staff. In addition, the subdivider shall provide a bond in an amount determined to be sufficient to guarantee installation and one-~ear main- tenance of this open space. Subject park shall be dedicated to the City at the end of the one-year maintanance period, unless development is not complete or plantings are not established. 4. All easements shown relating to sewer, access, storm drains, etc., shall be located at lot lines not common to the development of a duplex. All lots which have easements requiring access shall be a minimum of 30 feet wide from the easement to the opposite property line. 5. Access from the lots onto Orange Avenue shall be prohibited. 6. The walls along Orange Avenue shall be a minimum 5 feet high, and shall be of masonry construction. The location of the walls and landscaping adjacent to Orange Avenue shall be subject to staff approval. If it cannot be resolved at this level, then it should be brought back to the Planning Commission for a decision prior to consideration of the final map. 7. The street reservation for First Avenue at the end of "A" Street shall be eliminated. 8. It is obvious from the lot design presented that a blanket variance for fence construction on corner lots will be necessary when dwelling units are built. 9. All work within public right of way shall be done in accordance with the Standard Specifications and Standard Drawings of the City of Chula Vista, as revised December 3, 1968. -13- 1/6/69 10. The subdivision boundary shall be tied to the Lambert Projection for California Coordinate System, Zone VI. This shall be accomplished by tying the subdivision boundary to a minimum of two established horizontal control monuments on file in the office of the City Engineer. ll. An easement of 16 feet for sewer and storm drain purposes shall be provided in Lot 175 and/or Lots 175 and 176. 12. An existing sewer has been constructed in the proposed tentative. This sewer must be relocated in a manner subject to approval of the City Engineer. 13. It will be necessary to construct offsite sewer and storm drain facilities subject to approval of the City Engineer. 14. An easement of 16 feet for sewer and storm drain facilities shall be provided in Lot 306 and/or Lots 305 and 306. 15. Additional sewer manholes shall be constructed and/or relocated as required. 16. One foot control lots shall be provided at the end of all streets terminating at the subdivision boundary. 17. A cul-de-sac shall be constructed at the terminus of "D" Street at the southerly boundary of Unit 5, as per Resolution No. 4563 of the City of Chula Vista. 18. A letter shall be obtained from property owners adjacent to the subdivision stating their willingness to accept a concentration of drainage upon their property. 19. Slope rights shall be provided upon adjacent properties at the ends of all stub streets. 20. Legal description to define boundaries of subdivision on tentative map shall be corrected to read: Being a subdivision of portions of Lot 2, Section 14, T18S, R2S, and NW1/~ or NE1/4 Sec 23, T18S, R2W, SBM. 21. The alignment of Orange Avenue shall be revised so that the centerline of Orange Avenue, produced westerly, shall be 51 feet south of the angle point of the San Diego Gas & Electric Company right of way and 55 feet north of the southerly right of way of Bethune Way. 22. Lot 281, which is indicated as being reserved for a future street, shall not be reserved, but shall be fully improved and offered for dedication. Discussion - Window Signs for Bonita Plaza Shopping Center Director of Planning Warren stated that this matter was continued at the direction of the Commission in order that the staff notify each of the tenants in the shopping center of the staff's recommendations concerning their window signs. -14- 1/6/69 Member York indicated it was an uphill battle to try to control these signs-- the signs on the exterior are much more objectionable than those on the inside. Director Warren asked for some guidance from the Commission in regard to these signs, so that the staff would not be forced to continually put them on the Commission agenda with no resultant solution. Member Putnam indicated the mistake was made in allowing the type of signs to go in that are on the exterior of the buildings, not the inside. Director Warren commented that the window signs were within the jurisdiction of the Commission. Member Adams remarked that he favored administering control over these window signs and approves the recommendations of the staff. MSUC (Adams-Rice) Approval of staff's recommendations in regard to the window signs at Bonita Plaza Shopping Center notifying each tenant of his violation and subsequent action. Director Warren remarked that one of the problems was the administration of these violations--there is no follow-up on violations. PUBLIC HEARING - Ordinance amendin§ regulations concernin§ use of Tandem Parking Director of Planning Warren explained that this public hearing was a result of a request by the City Council to prohibit tandem parking in any residential zone except when specifically approved by the Commission. Mr. Warren submitted the staff's recommendation for adding (d) to Section 33.51 (Residential) and (4) to Section 33.54 (Commercial) making this provision. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. There being no comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. MSUC (Rice-Stewart) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Reco~ending to the City Council the Adoption of an Amendment to the RESOLUTION NO. 554 Zoning Ordinance concerning the use of Tandem Parking Section 33.51 - add (d) and Section 33.54 - add (4) as follows: Tandem Parking. Tandem parking shall be prohibited unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission. Architectural Approval - 4065 Bermuda Dunes Place - Fuller Enterprises Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan of the subdivision noting the lot (13) on which the proposed dwelling would be constructed. It will be a 4-bedroom structure containing 2,379 square feet with a 465 square foot garage included on the site. The construction of the dwelling indicates they will use medium shakes for roofing, vertical wood siding and stucco for the sides of the home. The staff recommends approval since the proposed dwelling is in general conformance with the houses in this area. -15- 1/6/69 MSUC (Rice-Stewart) Approval of the proposed dwelling. Approval - Relocation of Animal Shelter Director Warren referred to the staff's report noting the future proposed site for the animal shelter would be at 364 West Bay Boulevard. MSUC (York-Putnam) Recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed site as it would not adversely affect the General Plan. Discussion - Minimum pad size in proposed new R-1 zones Associate Planner Manganelli explained the proposal submitted by the staff in arriving at the minimum pad sizes for the small lots. Member York remarked that he was the one that requested this information and now wonders if it is a good idea. Most of the better homes in the vicinity of Malibu, for instance, have no pads for homes. If people are going to go F.H.A. they will have to meet the requirements of the F.H.A. and if they are going to get conven- tional financing they must build something that will sell. He suggested the proposal be dropped. The Commission concurred. MSUC (York-Stewart) The matter of the minimum pad size in the new R-1 zones be filed. No action taken. Vacation of a portion of quintard Street Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan of the area in question and remarked that the street was a collector street which requires 60 feet. It is presently an 80 foot right-of-way. In January, the Council vacated l0 feet from both sides of Quintard between Hilltop Drive and Tobias in recognition of the street's status as a non-arterial street. The staff recommends approval of the request. MSUC (York-Stewart) Approval of the request. Request for extension of time - United California Bank - Fifth and H Street MSUC (York-Stewart) Approval of a six-month extension of time for this variance; subject variance will now expire on May 20, 1969. Request for extension of time - First Church of Christ, Scientists 45 "I" Street MSUC (York-Stewart) Approval of a six-month extension of time for the conditional use permit; subject permit will now expire on July 1, 1969. Request for extension of time - Marie Gray - 211 Church Avenue MSUC (York-Stewart) Approval of a one-year extension of time for the variance; subject variance will now expire on January 3, 1970. -16- 1/6/69 Council-Commission Conference Director Warren reminded the Commission of the conference to be held with the Council on Monday, January 13, at 3:30 p.m. to discuss the proposed change to the comprehensive zoning ordinance. He urged all members to be present. Staff Work Report Director Warren commented that due to illness in the department and the workload, the report of the staff work program has not been completed. Chairman Hyde asked that the matter of reviewing the General Plan be placed first on that priority list. Director Warren indicated this report will be ready shortly and submitted to the Commission. Afternoon Meetings Member York suggested the staff be directed to call the meetings at 3:30 in the afternoons when they have a long agenda, such as the one tonight. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Rice-Adams) Meeting be adjourned to the meeting of January 13, 1969, at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ./ ~]/dennie M. Fulasz Secretary