HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1968/12/16 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
December 16, 1968
The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista,
California, was held on the above date in the Council Chamber, Civic Center,
with the following members present: Hyde, Adams, Chandler, Rice, Stewart,
York. Absent: none. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate
Planner Manganelli, Assistant Planner Lee, Junior Planner Liuag, City Attorney
Lindberg, and Assistant City Engineer Ge~ley.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Adams-York) Approval of minutes of meeting of November 25, 1968, as
mailed.
MSUC (York-Stewart) Approval of minutes of meeting of December 2, 1968, as
mailed.
MSUC (Chandler-Adams) Approval of minutes of meeting of December 9, 1968, as
mailed.
PUBLIC HEARING: (Cont'd) Rezoning - Property along the north side of Telegraph
Canyon Road between Hilltop Drive and Interstate 805 from R-1
to R-3 and C-1 Otay Land Company
Director of Planning Warren reviewed on a plot plan the location of the property
and the adjacent zoning and land use. He reported a conference had been held
with the applicant and representatives of the school district. Mr. Warren read
a letter received from S. B. Houser, Faciltiies Director of the Chula Vista
City School District, which indicated that the proposed development of this area
would necessitate building another school easterly of Halecrest School.
Mr. Warren indicated an important concern with this proposed development is the
impact it will have on the schools, but any residential development that might
take place would necessitate additional school facilities at the elementary level.
Director Warren contended that the proximity to the proposed new freeway would
lessen the amount of added traffic on local streets. The area is also served
by major streets connecting it with ot~er parts of the city and the increased
traffic should not create an overabundance of congestion on these streets.
Mr. Warren made reference to the petition submitted in opposition to this request
at the meeting of November 25, 1968 and stated that the remarks heard at that
meeting are a matter of record and a part of this hearing.
The staff recommends that the portion of subject property lying west of the
proposed center line of Nacion Avenue be rezoned R-3-B-2-D which would provide
density control and design control to promote compatibility with adjacent single-
family use.
It is also the opinion of the staff that the requested commercial zoning for
approximately 8 acres will be needed to serve the adjacent residential neigh-
borhood and the freeway traffic.
-2- Dec. 16, 1968
This being the time and place as advertised the public hearing was reopened.
Mr. Robert Lynds, 977 Wilshire Blvd., Beverly Hills, representing the Gersten
Construction Company, spoke in support of the requested zoning. He pointed out
that Mr. Gersten has been building for over 30 years and has completed over
fifty million dollars worth of construction throughout the nation, mostly
multi-family developments. He mentioned four projects presently under construc-
tion in San Diego County ranging from 224 units to over 1,O00 units and stated
that by completion each development has more applicants than there are units
available.
Mr. Ron Calhoun, Vice-President of Wilsey & Ham of Arcadia, who are doing the
master plan for the Otay Ranch spoke at some length. He said the need for
this zoning is based on data showing approximately 50% of the development in
this city in the last five years has been in multi-family projects and the need
for additional housing of that type is evidenced by the low vacancy factor in
the city (3%). It is his opinion this figure is even lower at this time than
when the report was compiled as new apartments recently completed are fully
occupied. He defended the development of apartments at this $i~e, stating:
"We find there are very few sites that are capable of being developed in an
interesting manner with convenient access and interesting terrain and would not
encroach on surrounding community."
Speaking for the commercial zoning Mr. Calhoun stated there are about 13,000
people in the area that do not have convenient shopping facilities. At the
present time not only the owners feel it is suitable for this use but they
have a commitment from a major tenant who is prepared to put in a 25,000 sq. ft.
market in the area.
Mr. Calhoun pointed out that there is roughly 100 feet difference in elevation
between the upper parts and lower parts of the property. Under their plan of
development the roof of the highest building will be below the view of the
lowest homes adjacent to this area. He added that any banks will be landscaped
to be protected from erosion and add beauty to the area--the owner will invest
one quarter million dollars in landscaping. He also spoke of the necessity of
providing for a drainage channel that comes underneath the freeway and will go
along Telegraph Canyon Road. This is a major city drain. They have studied
the best way to transmit the water and hope it can be a closed conduit.
Mr. Calhoun stated the developer is prepared to start immediately on this project
with completion in about 18 months to two years.
Speaking in opposition to this request were: Frank Meyer, 23 E1Capitan Drive;
W. O. Talley, 136 East E1Capitan Drive; George Biesinger, 348 East Miltan Street;
Mrs. Lawrence Phillips, 272 E. Millan Street; Robert Dickenson, 218 East Millan;
P. L. Coomer, 84 Monte Vista; F. J. Gelsomini, 650 Gretchen Road; Mrs. Vanderpool,
228 East Millan; Mrs. Howard Otterhold, 226 Kearney Court; Bill Mahin, 797 Mon-
serate; Paul Whitten, 153 E. E1 Capitan Drive; Judy Kaye, 95 East San Miguel
Drive; Mrs. Frank Conerty, 748 Neptune Court; Dr. Franklin Glanz, 67 E1 Capitan
Drive.
-3- Dec. 16, 1968
Their reasons for protest included overcrowding of the schools--residents who
have lived there many years, paying taxes and supporting school bonds should
not be subjected to the increase in children by such a project; object to apart-
ments in general and to the type of development Gersten is planning (with
government financing they will take on welfare cases and this is not wanted in
this area); the density proposed will cause congestion; if R-1 property is at
a premium in Chula Vista, why take land out of R-1 and make it R-3; there is a
lack of park and playground facilities and this land should be developed as a
park; do not want shopping facilities in this area--Chula Vista shopping center
is near enough for convenience.
Speaking in rebuttal, Mr. Lynds declared they had a lengthy meeting with
Mr. Hauser with reference to a new school site south of J Street, at the
terminus of the proposed extension of J Street. He also reminded the residents
that these projects also pay taxes, and an estimated $225,000 a year in taxes
would be paid by the apartment project, the amount to be paid by the commercial
development has not been estimated. He spoke of F.H.A. density controls and
that F.H.A. would not approve financing for this project if it was not needed.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was
declared closed.
Member Chandler commented that if this project would be completed within 18
months to two years, and if they have a waiting list, this would create an
immediate influx on the schools. Would not an R-1 development be a gradual
increase?
Member Stewart affirmed it has been difficult for schools to keep up with the
increase in pupils and it will be, regardless of this project.
MS (York-Adams) The Commission's deliberation on this question be continued to
the n~xt m~eting (January 6).
Mr. Hyde spoke against the motion to postpone to a later date, pointing out
this is the second time the matter has been heard; there has been 2 to 2~ hours
of testimony and the members have had time to consider the question.
Member Adams withdrew his second, and the motion was seconded by Member Stewart.
The motion to continue deliberation on this reqoning to the meeting of January 6
carried by the following vote:
ADAMS: Members York, Stewart, Rice, Chandler, Adams
NOES: Member Hyde
ABSENT: None
-4- Dec. 16, 1968
PUBLIC HEARINGS: Rezoninq - Proper~¥ south of San Die§o Gas & Electric ri§ht-
of-way, approximately 630' west of Hilltop Drive, from M-1
to R-2 - Jafro~ Inc.
Conditional Use Permit - Same property - Request to split
duplexes for individual sale - Jafro~ Inc.
Variance - Same property - Request for modification of offstreet
parking requirement - Jafro~ Inc.
These hearings were continued from the meeting of December 9 to give the applicants
an opportunity to meet with the staff to determine if some problems might be
discussed.
Mr. Warren stated that the staff is in accord with rezoning this land from the
present M-1 zone to some residential classification but hesitate to recommend
development with split duplexes on the entire 34 acres at this time. If this
zoning is granted it could permit up to about 250 attached dwelling units.
Mr. Warren expressed concern about the danger of congregating too many of this
type of dwelling unit in one area. He pointed out the need, however, for
dwellings in Chula Vista that will sell for less than$22,000; no single family
homes under that cost are being built today.
Planning Director Warren pointed out that while there have been statements that
this development would crowd Loma Verde School, there is an elementary school
site adjacent to this property to which these children would go when it is
constructed.
Mr. Warren summed up the staff's recommendations as approval of R-2 zoning for
the entire area requested; approval of the conditional use permit to allow the
splitting and individual sale of duplexes on only a northerly portion of the
area (as s~own on the plat displaj~ed); and approval of the request for variance
from offstreet parking requirements to apply to 50% of the models.
Planning Director Warren then read a two-page petition, bearing 75 signatures
respresenting 50 properties, protesting the proposed R-2 zoning, and requesting
that action be taken to rezone the property R-1.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. John Morgan, representing Jafro, Inc., affirmed that they are in agreement
with the recommendations of the Planning staff.
Mr. Gerald Smith, 1524 Hilltop Drive, spoke against rezoning to R-2, stressing
the overcrowding that would result from the addition of as many dwelling units
to the area as proposed by this development. He contended that the type of
housing proposed would result in transient type residents buying and selling,
coming and going; splitting the lots would further limit the area for children
to play. Mr. Smith was concerned about the city degenerating into a transient
city.
-5- Dec. 16, 1968
Mr. Roy Casinelli, 3731 Festival Court, raised a question as to why he was
told, when he purchased his home in August, that the surrounding area would be
in single family dwellings; why were they not told this would be rezoned to R-2.
City Attorney Lindberg pointed out that the present zoning is M-l, which is for
manufacturing, therefore, until the Commission made some disposition of it no
one could guarantee anything would go in there except the manufacturing use.
The portion of the hearing relating to rezoning was closed and consideration
proceeded to the conditional use permit.
A rendering of the type of dwellings to be constructed and sold as individual
dwellings was displayed and discussed.
Mr. Gardner, President of Jafro, Inc., confirmed that the plans shown are what
they plan to build. They have signed a contract with Jim Bird, Architect, to
do the design and the drafting, and they are happy to submit it for approval.
They have attempted to vary the front by designing some models with a bedroom
at the front to get away from having nothing but garage doors fronting on the
street.
The public hearing concerning the conditional use permit was closed, and the
variance request was considered.
Director of Planning Warren pointed out if these were constructed as duplexes
on one lot not to be split, garage space for three cars would meet the require-
ment; but in splitting the lot it becomes necessary to provide offstreet parking
for two cars for each unit or a total of four. Under the plans presented,
50% of the units would provide the two spaces in an enclosed garage and the
other 50% would be utilizing a one car garage, and if two cars were in the
family, one would have to be a tandem situation in the setback on 50% of the
units. This concept was approved for the duplex development at Quintard and
Hilltop. In this case all cars would be off the street.
In answer to a question by Member York, Mr. Gardner reaffirmed that this
project would follow the basic concept shown on the plans exhibited at this
meeting.
Rita Burns, 5884 Bertro Drive, La Mesa, spoke in favor of this development
pointing out that dwellings selling for $16,000 could be sold on F.H.A.
approval to individuals with a gross income of $494 a month, whereas a dwelling
priced at $22,000 would require a gross income of $678 a month.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
The Commission discussed the advisability of adding the "D'' zone to the R-2
zoning which would give some control over future development in the event the
area is not completely developed under the conditional use permit requested.
-6- Dec. 16, 1968
MSUC (Stewart-Rice) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending
RESOLUTION NO. 549 to the City Council the change of zone for property south
of San Diego Gas & Electric right-of-way, 630 feet west
of Hilltop Drive, from M-1 to R-2-D
Findings of fact are as follows:
a. Industrial zoning is not compatible with existing adjacent residential zoning
and land uses.
b. The industrial zoning, except for the Main Street frontage, is contrary to
the General Plan and, therefore, the Plan should be altered to reflect the
appropriate residential designation.
c. R-2 zoning will permit the development of a single family attached dwelling
unit which could be offered for sale at a price within the reach of many families
not presently able to purchase a home in Chula Vista.
d. Setbacks should be established by subdivision map in a manner appropriate
for the use involved.
MSUC (Rice-York) Approval of conditional use permit to split duplexes for
individual sale on the area delineated on the map covering the property south
of San Diego Gas & Electric Co. right-of-way, approximately 630 feet west of
Hilltop Drive, subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of this request will become effective only upon City Council
adoption of the R-2 zoning for this property.
2. Approval of the area delineated on the plat is subject to site plan and
architectural approval of all building elevations prior to the issuance of
a building permit.
Findings are 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.
The approval of splitting each duplex into separate parcels will provide for
single-family ownership at a level available to those in the moderate income
groups. It will also provide a diversity of housing types leading toward a
more balanced neighborhood.
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.
Granting this conditional use will comply with the orderly development of
the area.
-7- Dec. 16, 1968
c. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions
specified in the Code for such use.
Granting this conditional use pemlit will comply with all of the building
and zoning regulations now in force in Chula Vista.
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.
This conditional use permit will conform to the zoning regulations adopted
for this area.
MSUC (Adams-Rice) Approval of the variance to permit modification of offstreet
parking requirement subject to the following:
Approval is based on the applicant's floor plans submitted at this meeting
which show each two-unit building with one two-car garage and one one-car
garage.
Findings are as follows:
a. Strict application of zoning regulations would make it impractical to
develop units in a lower price range.
b. Exceptional circumstances applicable to the intended use which do not
apply to the other properties in the neighborhood are that lot widths
would make it undesirable or impractical to provide two-car enclosed
garages behind the setback for each unit. There is some basis for the
assumption that many of the families in the income groups toward which
these developments are directed would have only one vehicle.
c. Granting this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare since space will be available off street for the parking of at
least two vehicles per unit.
d. Granting this variance would have no effect on the objectives of the
General Plan.
Subdivision - Tentative Map of Holiday Estates, Units 5-6-7
Director of Planning Warren pointed out that the previous action necessitates
revision of the subdivision map and the subdivider has agreed to submit a new
map to be considered on January 6, 1969.
MSUC (York-Stewart) A revised tentative map for Holiday Estates, Units 5-6-7
be placed on the agenda for the meeting of January 6, 1969.
-8- Dec. 16, 1968
PUBLIC HEARING (Cont'd) - Rezonin§ and prezoning of La~ton's Otas Lakes Road
Annexation - R-l-B-20 and R-l-B-12 to R-1 - Cameron Bros.
Construction Company
Planning Director Warren pointed out on a map the area presently zoned R-l-B-20
and that which is prezoned R-I-B-12. He pointed out the two schools in the
vicinity of this property and reminded the Commission of the rugged terrain of
this area. He stated he had pointed out to the applicant that since recent
action was taken to prezone this property R-l-B-12 there should be some
justification for the change to R-1. He then referred to two maps prepared
by the subdivider; one showing a method of developing under R-1 into 224 lots,
the other under R-l-B-12 would result in 163 lots.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Cliff Burford, representing the applicant, stated that this rezoning and
prezoning of approximately 65 acres is for the purpose of the development of
a single family subdivision. The amount of graded banks on each lot would be
about the same under either zone with a net loss of 25% of lot yield due to the
using of more level parcels for larger lot sizes. He referred to a drawing which
outlined the more level portions of the property (slopes of 5 to 10 per cent)
and indicated they wish to develop this in 7000 sq. ft. lots, the steeper parts
will be developed in the same manner regardless of the way the property is
zoned. Over 30% of the lots in the proposed subdivision will exceed 12,000
sq. ft. He maintained that something more than grading should be recognized
in prezoning an area. He believed the community services should be the consider-
ation in determining density, and topography, with adequate controls by Federal,
state and local, should be the control of grading.
Mr. Burford pointed out that the average density of this subdivision under
R-l zoning would be 3.5 units per acre, a more generous density is shown on
the General Plan. He then made reference to the college, high school and
junior high which serve this area and sites for two elementary schools; also
a site within 1/4 mile designated for a community shopping center large enough
to service a community with densities up to 7 units per acre; two major roads
are within 1/4 mile of this development.
Mr. Burford again emphasized that their proposed development under R-1 would
require only 10% more grading than under the R-I-B-12, and only 10% of the
lots would contain slopes above the height of the house.
Dr. Robert Cooley, 4213 Acacia Avenue, representing the Acacia Home Owners
Association, spoke in opposition to the rezoning, and referred to a recent
study by the Sweetwater Valley Planning Committee which indicated this area
should not be lowered in zoning. He also made a point of the banks which would
have to be landscaped and maintained. He stated that planning would be
pointless if developers are permitted to come into an area and downgrade the
zoning.
Ttlere being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
-9- Dec. 16, 1968
Member York questioned whether prezoning can be subject to a specific map, and
was advised by City Attorney Lindberg that this can be done.
Member York asked the opinion of the Planning Director in regard to the proposed
subdivision map for development under R-l.
Planning Director Warren advised that the map had just been submitted two days
before the meeting and there had not been sufficient time to carefully review
the map. In reference to grading, as proposed by the subdivider, the grading
would be almost the same in either case. Grading would be done in a manner
that would be safe and erosion would be prevented. It would conform to F.H.A.
standards while the Bonita Bel-Aire subdivision did not.
Member Chandler remarked that this area has been prezoned R-l-B-12 with the
idea it would be a buffer between that area overlooking the Valley and the
smaller lot sizes around the College. He expressed the opinion this buffer
zone should be retained.
MS (York-Stewart) To continue this matter of rezoning until the staff has
studied the subdivision map.
The motion failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES: Members York, Stewart, Rice
NOES: Members Adams, Hyde, Chandler
MSC (Adams-Chandler) Resolution of the City Planning Commission recommending
RESOLUTION NO. 550 to the City Council that the request for R-1 zoning
be denied and that portion of the area presently zoned
R-l-B-20 be rezoned to R-I-B-12.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Members Adams, Chandler, Stewart, Rice, and Hyde
NOES: Member York
ABSENT: None
Findings of fact are as follows:
a. R-1 zoning, as requested, would be in nonconformance with the General Plan.
b. No changes in circumstances since R-l-B-12 prezoning was established.
c. Excessive grading would have to be accomplished to accommodate 7000 sq. ft.
lots permitted in R-1 zoning.
The applicant was advised of his right to appeal to the City Council within l0 days.
Subdivision - Ten tative Map of College Highlands
This map related to the property for which the R-1 zoning was requested and denied.
MSUC (Rice-Chandler) Tentative map of College Highlands be filed without action.
-10- Dec. 16, 1968
PUBLIC HEARING (Cont'd) - Variance - 733 Broadway - Request for reduction in
required number of off-street parkin~ spaces - Max Weinstock
Planning Director Warren reviewed this application, which has been continued
twice at the request of the applicant, and requests a reduction from the
requirement of 17 parking spaces to 9 spaces for a proposed furniture store.
He advised that a petition signed by four furniture companies was submitted
in favor of this variance.
This being the time and place, the public hearing was declared open.
Mr. Franklin Geerdes, representing the applicant, commented that Mr. Weinstock
feels he should have a building of 10,000 sq. ft. in order to have a successful
business and make the best use of the location. Under the requirement which
sets the ratio of parking spaces by the store area, this would require more
spaces than this business would utilize.
Mr. Geerdes pointed out there is no parking district in the vicinity of this
store and they have not been successful in locating a lot within 300 feet
which they might lease for parking.
Mr. Geerdes again pointed out that a furniture store requires greater floor
space in comparison to the number of customers than other types of retail
business. A store of this size would require three or four staff members and
would not average more than three customers at a time. He maintained that one
parking space for 1200 feet of floor space would meet their requirement.
Mr. Rice pointed out that a study was made before the present requirement was
established and he would be reluctant to feel that the figures are out of line.
There being no further comment, the hearing was closed.
The Commission discussed the possibility that this building might not always
be occupied by a furniture business and a succeeding use might require additional
parking which could not be accommodated.
MSC (Rice-Adams) Request for reduction in required number of offstreet parking
spaces be denied.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Members Rice, Adams, Chandler, Rice, Stewart
NOES: Member York
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC HEARING - Variance - 485 Fifth Avenue - Request for increase in permitted
si§n area in C-1-D zone - B. Resnick
This dry cleaning and shoe repair shop located in the Big Apple shopping complex
presently has signs on two sides of the building which total 48 sq. ft. This
request is for two additional 24 sq. ft. signs to be located on the north and
west elevations.
Planning Director Warren commented that the sign ordinance is very hard to
-ll- Dec. 16, 1968
enforce as evidenced by the fact that this building is now displaying two signs
which have not been approved, in addition to the approved signs.
Mr. B. Resnick, applicant and half-owner of the business, advised that the signs
which are in violation are paper signs. He feels that with the investment they
have made they need identification on all sides of their building to attract
business.
MSUC (Adams-Chandler) Approval of request for two additional signs with the
condition that the signs be identical with the existing 19' X 15" sign on the
south elevation.
Findings are 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 proposed signs are 50% of the permitted area by ordinance for each
side of the building. No more than the permitted 50 sq. ft. can be viewed
at any one time.
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 building is situated within the shopping center in such a manner that
all four elevations are exposed.
c. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such zone or neigh-
borhood in which the property is located.
The signing will be in keeping with the center and other uses in the area.
d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of
the General Plan.
The General Plan will not be affected.
PUBLIC HEARING - Variance - 475 H Street - Request for increase in permitted
sign area in C-1-D zone - Julius Kahn
The Commission previously approved a zone variance for the applicant to increase
the maximum sign area from 50 sq. ft. to 129 sq. ft. for the Big Apple. At
that time an additional request for a sign designating the store as a "Discount
Department Store" was not approved. A new application has been filed for a
similar sign reduced in size to 2~' X 37' to be placed directly below the
existing Big Apple sign on the south facade. Assistant Planner Lee presented
the staff's recommendation for approval of the sign as submitted (non-flashing).
The public hearing was opened, but as no one was present to speak for or
against the request, the public hearing was closed.
-12- Dec. 16, 1968
MSUC (Stewart-Rice) Approval of request for additional sign designating Big
Apple store as a "Discount Department Store."
Findings are 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 50 sq, ft. does not allow the applicant proper identification for a
business located 300 feet from the street. Fifty (50) sq. ft. would not
be in scale with the building facade.
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.
Strict application would not allow the applicant the same identification
enjoyed by other business in the area and a 222 sq. ft. sign would be in
scale with the building.
c. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such zone or neigh-
borhood in which the property is located.
The sign is similar in size to existing department store signs in the area.
d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of
the General Plan.
The General Plan will not be affected.
PUBLIC HEARING - Variance 455 H Street - Request for increase in permitted sign
area in C-1-D zone - Dunlop Tires
Director of Planning Warren outlined the request for signs as follows:
1. 3' X 18' : 54 sq. ft. - "DUNLOP" - yellow and black color scheme
2. 18" X 18" - 2~ sq. ft. - "Tire Service Specialist" - red background with
white letters.
3. 10 sq. ft. - "Logo" - Red and white
No renderings of any of these signs were received by the staff although they
were informed that the "DUNLOP" sign had been manufactured and shipped here.
This was contrary to the staff's advice to the applicant as he was informed
that any sign would require approval of the Commission before installation.
Director of Planning Warren gave the staff's recommendation for denial of
the request with the recommendation that any sign approved be limited to a
3' X 12', red and white plastic, identical to those already approved for the
pharmacy and liquor store. In addition the 18" X 18" "Tire Service Specialist"
sign may be approved by the staff subject to the submission of plans revealing
its conformance to the approved signs regarding color, materials, and location.
-13- Dec. 16, 1968
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Glen Rathbun, representing the tire store licensee of the Big Apple, spoke
in favor of the request, defending the "Dunlop" sign as a good sign, structurally
sound, approved by good signing and good standards--certainly nothing offensive
about it unless somebody finds black and yellow offensive. It is a nationally
used sign which they feel is necessary to identify themselves as tire specialists.
The logo, in question, is something that would mean nothing to the Commission
or probably to the general public; it is the international logo of the Dunlop
Tire and Rubber Corporation, being nothing more than a solid circle in the
interior of an arrowhead. The word "DUNLOP" is one that expresses their
business to the general public.
Under questioning by Member York, Mr. Rathbun acknowledged that he had been
advised of the ordinance governing signs and the need for Commission approval,
but declared this was after the sign had been shipped.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the public hearing was
closed.
MSUC (York-Rice) Denial of request for variance except for the sign recommended
by the staff, and a reiteration of the previous policy for staff approval of signs
which meet the standards established for this center.
The Chairman advised the applicant of the right to appeal this decision to the
City Council within 10 days.
Planning Director Warren made the suggestion the Commission might wish to consider
the next four items together and accept the staff recommendations or discuss the
items in question separately. These include:
Request for design approval for constrction at 515 H Street - Kingston, Lasswell
and Henry
The staff recommends approval of the architecture and site plans as submitted
(minor parking modifications have been made by the staff).
Request for design approval for apartments at 211 Church Avenue - Lyle and Marie Gray
The proposal submitted incorporates the following:
1. Cedar shingle roof.
2. Front elevation consists of used brick and board with battens 16" O.C.
3. Side elevations are stucco with the entrances to the apartment units oriented
to the north property line.
4. Five parking spaces are provided with access to the alley and one parking
space entering from Landis Avenue.
-14- Dec. 16, 1968
The staff recommends approval subject to the following:
1. The proposed colors to be used shall be submitted for staff approval.
2. A landscaping plan, including the parkway area, shall be submitted for
staff approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3. Cedar shingles to be replaced with simulated shakes because of the fire
regulations in the C-2 zone.
Request for approval of si~n in supplemental "D" zone - 29 Third Avenue - Joan Howard
This sign is to be used on conjunction with a real estate office. A sketch was
submitted showing a 4' X 8' sign, dark brown background with yellow and white
letters. Because of the building orientation and the available area on the
building to logically locate a sign, the staff recommends that the sign area be
limited to 2' X 12' (24 sq. ft.), mounted flush on the westerly elevation in
line with the top of the parapet wall.
Subdivision - Final Map of Falir Unit No. 4
This subdivision unit includes 99 R-1 lots on 23 acres, located north of Orange
Avenue and east of Wisteria Street. The map is in conformance with the approved
tentative map and the staff recommends approval, subject to the conditions
recommended by the City Engineer.
MSUC (York-Stewart) Approval (subject to the recommendations of the staff) of the
items enumerated.
Discussion - Emer§encs ordinance re~ulatin~ the use of tandem parkin~
Planning Director Warren advised that a request was received from the City
Council that an ordinance be considered that would restrict tandem parking.
Mr. Warren suggested that the Commission recommend to the City Council that the
offstreet parking requirement be modified by an emergency ordinance to permit
tandem parking only upon approval of the Commission.
MSUC (York-Chandler) The City Attorney be directed to prepare an emergency
ordinance to permit tandem parking only upon approval of the Commission.
To be set for public hearin,~ - Proposed Prezonin§ Plan for Sweetwater Valle,v for January 13~ 1969
MSUC (Rice-York) The public hearing on the proposed prezoning plan for Sweetwater
Valley be set for January 13, 1969.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Hyde declared the meeting adjourned at 11:55 p.m.
Respectfully sNbmitted,
Helen S. Mapes, Acting Secretary