HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1966/10/24 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
October 24, 1966
The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on the
above date in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, at 7 p.m. with the following
members present: Stewart, Johnson, Gregson, Rice, Adams and Guyer. Absent:
(with previous notification) Member York. Also present: Director of Planning
Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, Junior Planner Lee, City Attorney Lindberg,
and Principal Engineer Harshman.
STATEMENT
The Secretary hereby states that she did post within 24 hours of adjournment, as
required by law, the order for the adjourned meeting of October 3, 1966.
Member Welcomed
Chairman Stewart welcomed the new member, Leslie Rice, to the Commission.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Director of Planning Warren stated a different set of findings, as made by Member
Adams, would be substituted for those reported in the minutes of the last meeting
concerning the variance for Gunthorp, 20 Second Avenue, as follows:
There are exceptional circumstances to the property in that it consists
of a large area of land located behind an existing dwelling and having no
frontage on a dedicated street.
2. Unless the requirements for frontage on a dedicated street is waived by
this variance, the owner is deprived of the use of his property.
3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
welfare because the resulting lots will exceed by a large margin the
7,000 square foot minimum required by ordinance and the condition of the
variance which requires plot plans and architectural plans to be
submitted to the Planning staff for approval will insure compatibility.
MSUC (Johnson-Adams) Approval of minutes with the modification of the above findings.
PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - Bollenbacher & Kelton, Inc. & Fee Corp.- Request for
Reduction in Minimum House Size (3 Bedroom) from 1200 Sq. Ft. to 1123,
1116, and 1107 Sq. Ft. - Southwestern College Estates
Director of Planning Warren stated a call was received from a property owner in the
subdivision claiming he did not get a notice of the hearing. Mr. Warren proceeded
to explain that names are taken from the office of the City Clerk whose records are
changed once a year in March; therefore, if a person purchased a home in this sub-
division anytime after March, his ownership would not show on the City's records -
it would be listed as Bollenbacher & Kelton. For this reason, the staff is requesting
a postponement for two weeks during which time they would send out notices to all
"res!clents'l of the area. Mr. Warren stated that a representative of the residents
in the area is present and states that a majority of the residents is present
tonight and they do not wish a postponement.
City Attorney Lindberg noted that because some of the property owners had not
received written notice does not invalidate a hearing. The owners and the applicants
should determine whether they want their hearing continued. The Planning staff met
the legal requirements in mailing out the notices and publishing the notice in the
"Star-News". Chairman Stewart asked for a show of hands of those people present
who came to hear this matter. It was noted that approximately 25 people were
present. The Commission concurred that the hearing should be held.
The application was read in which a request was made for permission to construct
21 three-bedroom homes containing total square footages of 1107, 1116, and 1123 in
Unit 1 of this subdivision. The City Code requires a 3-bedroom homes to have a
minimum of 1200 square feet of floor area.
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the homes built in con-
formance to the ordinance, those built on a previous variance granted by the Council,
and those proposed to be built as requested by this variance request.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Ray Swanner, representing Bollenbacher & Kelton, spoke of the need for this
request. He asked to reserve hls remarks until after the opposition has had a chance
to speak.
Those speaking in opposition: Paul Yeager, 414 J Street; Eugene Colemen, 5941 Gotham
Street; Mr. John Ayers, 5404 Wayne Avenue; Mr. Hunt]ey, 5050 Harvard Street;
Mr. Frattini, 5942 Gotham Street; and Mr. John Hall, 5838 Gotham Street. They
stated as their reasons: (1) the last time the Council granted the applicants a
variance to build smaller homes ~n this area, they stated it would be the last time
they would grant such approval; (2) because of the potential of this area, the floor
area requirement should be increased instead of decreased; (3) it is a downward
trend; with the present cost of the homes ranging from $18,500 to $26,000, a smaller
home cannot compare with these priced-homes; (4) it would depreciate the neighborhood;
(5) if the variance is approved, the applicants would sell nothing but these smaller
homes in the future; (6) their understanding that all homes from Gotham Street to
Bonita Vista High School would be luxury-type homes; (7) perhaps there is a demand for
lower-priced homes in the area, but if there is a demand for a tent-city in Chula
Vista, how far would the city go in this respectl (8) the property owners accepted
a set of rules (deed restrictions) to llve by in this subdivision and now the
developers wish to change the rules to suit themselves; (9) owns a large home on a
large lot and wants to keep the area that way.
Mr. Ray Swanner indicated he was surprised at the number of protestants and remarked
that some of them or their neighbors are living in these smaller-type homes. He
spoke of the difficulty they had in selling these large homes, and not until they
received a variance for smaller homes, did F.H.A. agree to finance them and they
were able to sell them. During the sale of these smaller homes, they were able to sell
the larger homes that have stood vacant for as much as 6 months to ]4 months. They
have 18 smaller homes in the area and are now requesting an additional 21, they will
-2-
have a total of 39 smaller homes out of the 150 contemplated to be built in this
area. Mr. Swanner then showed two elevations of the proposed homes declaring that
the Commission could not tell them apart from the larger homes, since some of them
will have the same width in front as the larger homes. Even the people living out
there do not know which is which. They would also like to have it known that they
would have gone door to door with the notices had they known that some of the
property owners d~d not receive a notice. Mr. Swanner then spoke of the economics
of the situation - the amount of incom~ a couple had to earn in order to qualify
for one of their homes, and he reminded the Commission that it has been 5 years now
since the property was purchased.
A request was made for a show of hands of those property owners living on Gotham
Street. It was noted that approximately 12 people raised their hands.
Mr. Swanner noted that these new proposed smaller-homes would average in price
about $17,200 or $17,300.
Director Warren remarked that the staff takes a somewhat different look at this
request than the residents do. The staff does not quarrel with the design of the
homes and finds most of them compatible with the area. The applicant's problem,
along with the traffic problems, are those exemplifying the disadvantages of
"leap-frog" annexations and development. They are about five years ahead of the
market. Mr. Warren then spoke of the citizen's committee formed some three years
ago in connection with the General Plan. One of the recommendations of this
residential committee was that the minimum size of a home to be built in Chula Vista
should be 1200 square feet with 2-car enclosed garages. After a considerable amount
of work by the staff, the Commission and the Council over a period of two years,
the sliding scale was enacted. This ordinance was considered appropriate, and the
Commission should consider very carefully each variance request as it comes in to
make sure it is justified, otherwise, the provisions of the ordinance will become
effective. From time to time, variances can be granted, but the time has come now
for this area to be upgraded. If the present ordinance is justifiable and has
merit in this area, how can the variance be justified? If the variance is granted,
the ordinance requirement should be restudied.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
Member Guyer noted that "H" Street will run into this area as will Interstate 805, and the
County has plans to straighten out Telegraph Canyon Road. He declared that the
Commission should be very careful not to approve anything that would tend to down-
grade the area.
Member Johnson remarked that part of the economic difficulty here is because this
area is remote from any shopping center and transportation may be a problem. This,
rather' than the architectural structure, is the immediate cause of this developer's
problem.
Member Adams stated he agrees with the Planning Director's remarks and added that
from the start, this subdivision was planned for a high-grade residential area -
$20,000 to $30,000 homes. He feels it shouldn't be downgraded by filling it up
with small lower-priced homes. It is not sound economics to put a $16,000 home next
to a $30,000 home in this type of subdivision. Mr. Adams added that there is no
proper basis here for a variance. The Commission did not approve the first variance
for the original request for smaller homes; therefore, it was not the Commission
that established any precedent here.
-3-
MSUC (Guyer-Rice) Variance ~ ~i! st be denied based on the following reasons:
1. Since a definite character is already established in the area for better
homes, no exceptional circumstances can be justified. There is no
unnecessary hardship on the property since this subdivision was developed
w~th wide lots and is otherwise generally typical.
2. Preservation of a substantial property right, according to the applicant,
is necessary because this subdivision was planned prior to the enactment
of the minimum house size ordinance. If this reasoning were used to
justify this variance, the Commission would be forced to grant hundreds
of variances yearly on every proposed ordinance change. The applicant
will be prevented from building no d~fferently than any other single-family
residential area with comparable conditions.
3. It is the opinion of the Commission that granting this variance could
serve as a detriment to the public welfare. They believe that there ~s
an opportunity to develop an exceptional community centered around the
Junior College. Care should be taken to assure that all types of housing
be available in the area, but if so, it should be appropriately provided
and designed in a manner conforming to the minimum standards established
by the Planning Commlss~on and the Council.
City Attorney Lindberg reminded the applicants that they have a right to appeal
the decision of the Planning Commission within 10 days of their notification of
the results of this meeting.
SUBDIVISION - Tentative Map - Hilltop Terrace View~ Unit #2
Director of Planning Warren submitted the map noting the location of this sub-
division as between Hilltop Drive and Tobias Drive, north of Quintard Street.
The area has approximately 4.9 acres and contains 21 single-family lots; five
of these lots front on Hilltop Drive across from Castle Park High School while
the remaining 16 have frontage on a cul-de-sac which extends eastward from
Tobias Drive. There are no recommended conditions for this map from the
Division of Engineering; however, the Planning staff has two for the Commission's
consideration. Mr. Warren then proceeded to explain the conditions.
MSUC (Adams-Johnson) Approval of tentative map subject to the following conditions:
1. All slopes shall be graded and planted in accordance with specifications
on file in the Planning Department with the type of plar~ material used
on the slopes subject to the approval of the Director of Planning.
Special attention shall be given to the final design of Lots 7 through 11
to assure that better utilization of the lots will be possible when final
grading is complete.
R__e. quest by Princess Park....Estates~ Inc. for Change in Dwelllngs to be Constructed
in Princess Manor Unit #5
A letter was read from Princess Park Estates, Inc., relating to proposed homes in
Princess Manor, Unit #5. Two years ago, Director Warren explained; the Commissio~
granted a variance for the entire subdivision to permit lesser square footage
for homes than allowed by ordinance. The approval was based on the condition
that when each subdivision unit was to be developed, the developers would come
back to the Commission with the models, elevations, etc., of the homes proposed
to be constructed in the unit. Now the appllcant has seen the need to modify the
request for the Princess Unit No. 5 subdivision. Mr. Warren then reviewed the
request as submitted by the applicant.
City Attorney Lindberg stated this was a policy matter of adjusting something
that has previously been granted and would not require a new public hearing.
Chairman Stewart asked how the Building Department administered the original
variance that was granted. Director Warren declared that Commission act[on was
clearly delineated to them by letter.
Member Adams questioned whether the Building Department was checking to see if
the houses planned for certain lots were actually being built on those lots.
Director Warren stated that each of the building permits is checked by one of
the Planning staff members.
Member Johnson noted that the developer has reduced the number of the smaller
sized homes, than that originally requested.
Chairman Stewart asked the developer how much gross square footage he Js saving
in the entire request.
Mr. Ralph Spaid, representing Princess Park Estates, declared he had no record of
this. He then explained that this particular tract was being built in two units,
this unit containing 108 homes. For the first unit, they applied for 100 permits
and all of these were checked out by the Planning Department.
City Attorney Lindberg pointed out that, in effect, except for the increase of
small three-bedroom homes, the developer is actually upgrading the program.
Mr. Spaid said that was correct.
The Commission discussed the two-bedroom homes. Mr. Spaid indicated there was a
demand for them now for people ready for retirement. Originally, the homes were
sold to military personnel wanting these two-bedroom homes. These homes sell for
approximately $15,800 to $16,000.
Member Johnson noted that if this was a new request, he would not be in favor of [t;
however, since ~t has already been granted, he will go along with it.
MSUC (Johnson-Guyer) Modification of ~a~i~ance request be approved, as follows:
Presently Proposed ~rlginally Approved
2 bedroom - oversized 59 6
3 bedroom - oversized 13 15
4 bedroom - oversized 16 34
5 bedroom - oversized 14 21
TOTALS 102 76
3 bedroom - undersized by 193 sq.ft. 42 30
3 bedroom - undersized by 101 sq.ft. 18 37
3 bedroom - undersized by 60 sq.ft. 21 21
4 bedroom - undersized by 60 sq.ft. 25 44
TOTALS 106 132
Approval of Final Plans for Bonita Glenn Lodge, Southeast Corner Sandalwood Drive
and Bonita Road
Director of Planning Warren showed the plans and elevations for the proposed
convalescent facility. The architecture will be of a contemporary Spanish or
Moorish influence. Mr. Warren discussed the parking layout noting the areas for
employee parking and guest parking. He then commented on the landscaping plans sub-
mitted for the site asking that the Commission request that the developer submit
detailed landscaping plans to the department for approval.
Member Guyer questioned the traffic pattern on Bonita Road. Mr. Warren noted the
curb cuts on Bonita Road and discussed the flow of traffic for this area.
Mr. Frank Ferreira, 3715 Putter Drive, spoke of the proposed building pad for
this building and discussed the differences in elevation. He noted that there
will be a retaining wall on the east side.
Member Johnson asked if there would be a fence around this property. Mr. Warren
noted the retaining wall that would be built.
Mr. Darrell Fields, representing Harris & Turner, the developers, explained the
security measures that will be enforced, such as fenced patios, locked gates, etc.
Member Rice asked if there would be any landscaping on the corner of Bonita Road -
on the west side. Mr. Warren indicated that landscaping would be restricted to
low-growing shrubs to eliminate a traffic hazard.
MSUC (Guyer-Johnson) Approval of plans, in accordance with the IlOll zone, subject
to approva! by the Planning Director of detailed landscape plans for the site.
Request for Extension of Hours of Operation - Mona Liaa Restaurant - 13 Naples Street -
"C-N" Zone
Oirector of Planning Warren stated that this request was referred to the Commission
by the City Administrator after a letter was received by the City Council. This
is a shopping center within the C-N zone which requires businesses to close by
11 p.m. The proponents have submitted a petition to the Council signed by 136
persons involving 114 properties. They are spread throughout the neighborhood
with one signator adjacent at the rear of this site. A letter from the applicant
was then read.
Mr. Harry Danforth, represenfi ng Gaspare Apparlto, owner of the restaurant, referred
to the petition submitted. He declared this was a family-type restaurant which does
not even have a bar to serve alcoholic beverages - this is served at the tables
with food. The reason they are requesting the late hours on Friday and Saturday
evenings is to accommodate the many families that go out on these nights and would
like to stop at the restaurant after a late show, etc., to have something to eat
and drink.
Mr. Warren referred to a letter sent to the Commission from the Chief of Police
asking that the Commission deny the request based on the problems that would arise
in this area if the late hour was approved.
Member Rice commented that he lives within a few blocks of this establishment and
has eaten there several times. He would be against any place selling alcoholic
beverages in this neighborhood, especially in the late hours; however, he feels there
is nothing here that would make him apprehensive about granting this request.
'6-
Member Johnson asked if it were feasible to prepare and sell only take-out food
during these extra hours. Mr. Danforth stated it would not.
Member Adams commented that this restaurant is a quiet one now, but if they were
allowed to stay open until 2 a.m., they would get customers that would order more
drinks than food - he feels it would be totally out of place, and he is opposed
to it.
Member Rice suggested they approve only the sale of food and prohibit the sale of
alcoholic beverages during these late hours. City Attorney Lindberg stated they
could not legally do this, as the sale of alcoholic beverages is controlled by
the Alcoholic Beverage Control and the Commission cannot regulate the hours per-
taining to this.
Chairman Stewart commented that the surrounding area is zoned R-1 and there have
already been some requests by adjacent property owners to rezone their properties
to R-3 because of this center. He discussed the recommendation by the Police
Department to deny this request remarking they had some problems with another
business in this shopping area that sold soft drinks at late hours.
Member Johnson stated he checked with the Police Department about these problems
in the past and was told that they were having no more trouble with this area
than any other shopping center. He feels it is a reasonable request and that
the City does have a noise ordinance, if a police enforcement problem arises
because of this request, then the matter can be reopened.
Member Guyer asked if this could be put on a temporary basis ~ for a period of
six months or one year. City Attorney Lindberg stated this could be done and if
there is a complaint as to the operation, the matter can be referred back to the
Commission and the condition can be modified appropriately.
Member Adams commented that he would hate to see the Commission approve this
request since right away there will be others coming in asking for the same hours.
Mr. Danforth declared that his client would be willing to restrict himself on the
sale of alcoholic beverages at these late hours. He added that the sale of these
beverages amount to only 8 % of the total sales.
Chairman Stewart noted the vehicular traffic that would be coming in and out of
this center during these late hours and that this is not compatible with a
residential neighborhood.
The Commission discussed the possibility of approving this request on a temporary
basis. Member Adams felt it would be too difficult to try to stop it, if there was
a problem there, since all kinds of evidence would have to be submitted.
Chairman Stewart commented that whatever the Commission does must be predicated
on the public interest. He added that there are numerous other places that serve
the public after ll p.m. and the people could go there rather than come to this
residential neighborhood.
MS(Adams-Rice) Denial of request based on the following:
1. ThJs is a neighborhood shopping center, and the later than 11 p.m. closing is
not compatible with the surrounding single-family residential area. 0nly one
-7-
of the petition signators lives adjacent to the shopping center site.
· 2. A request was made by the Chief of Police to deny this request based on
problems that have been encountered in this area in the past and those
typical of late hour establishments dispensing alcoholic beverages.
The motion failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES: Members Adams, Rice, and Stewart
NOES: Members Guyer, Johnson and Gregson
ABSENT: Member York
MS (Johnson-Guyer) Approval of request for a probationary period of six months
after which t]me the matter would be brought back to the C.-ommission for recon-
sideration.
The motion failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES: Members Johnson, Guyer, and Gregson
NOES: Members Stewart~ Adams and Rice
ABSENT: Member York
City Attorney Lindberg declared the matter has not been approved by the Commission,
but that the applicant can bring this to the attention of the Council.
Recommendation - Request for Vacation of D Street Between Lots at ll9 & 123 Minot Street
Director of Planning Warren referred to a letter of petibion to the City Council
which was referred to the Commission signed by two property owners asking for this
vacation of a portion of D Street which adjoins their properties. This is strictly
a "paper street" dedicated to the City some 50 years ago, accepted but never im-
proved or used. There is quite a change in topography here and the staff has
investigated the potential of this street as it relates to need and development;
from a Planning standpoint, they feel it would serve no purpose. Mr. Warren then
read the report of the Engineering Division recommending this portion of the
street be vacated.
MSUC (Guyer-Rice) Recommend to City Council that the request be approved, based
on the following reasons:
Improvement of the subject portion of D Street is considered as feasible by the
Division of Engineering; however, the grades which would be necessitated by the
rough topography would be unusually steep (approximately 20 %) as compared to
normal design standards used in Chula Vista.
The only condition under which the improvement of this right-of-way could possibly
be justified would be if First Avenue were to be extended to cross or connect to
the proposed Sweetwater Belt Freeway. Even then, the number of users would beI
limited.
In the opiol.on of the Planning Commission, this right-of-way has very limited
potential utility to the City of Chula Vista. The City does not ordinarily improve
local streets. The improvement of the street would not create any new lots and
therefore, motivation to improve is nonexistent.
-8-
Recommendation - Proposed Elks-Telegraph Canyon Road Annexation
Director of Planning Warren submitted a map noting the location of the proposed
annexation. This area contains 10.09 acres and is now improved with a nearly-
completed Chula Vista Elks Lodge. Telegraph Canyon Road traverses the northeast
corner of this property. This annexation comes before the Local Agency Formation
Commission on Monday, October 31 for approval. There is some urgency on the part
of the proponents to get this into the city, as they must obtain sewer. The
annexation would come in as interim R-1 and the Club would be a non-conforming
use. Mr. Warren added that the staff would make one recommendation concerning
landscaping for the site; however, there is some concern on the part of the City
Attorney as to whether this would be a legal requirement.
City Attorney Lindberg stated that the Commission should go ahead and approve
this with the understanding that the legality will be further checked before final
Council action.
Member Johnson asked if any attempt was made to check their building plans to see
that they conform to Chula Vista's Code. He would like to make a further con-
dition - that their building construction meets our standards.
City Attorney Lindberg stated they are building this in the County which uses
the same Building Code as the City.
Member Rice noted the triangular-shaped parcel that would be left north of
Telegraph Canyon Road which would contain approximately 7000 or 8000 feet.
Member Guyer asked if this could come back to the Commission along with a plot plan.
Director Warren explained that normally, as a non-conforming use, Commission
approval would not be required. The proponents did a lot of grading and there
is a lot of barren soil right now, so the staff put in that condition for land-
scaping to which the proponents have agreed.
Chairman Stewart felt it was in order to recommend approval of this annexation
with this condition.
Member Johnson asked if the City would be able to apply their parking standards
as to paving, etc. Director Warren indicated they could not since the building
comes in as non-conforming.
City Attorney Lindberg stated that since this matter was hurried, there has been
no opportunity to prezone the property and that this would be the proper time to
recommend such to the City Council. The zoning would be good for 90 days.
Director Warren explained that originally, it would have come into the City with
an interim R-1 zoning; however, under the new ruling, the Commission or Council
must prezone the property. Mr. Warren suggested that the "D" zone be attached,
and then they would have to submit their final plans for approval. They intend
to provide paving and sufficient parking.
MSUC (Guyer-Adams) Recommend approval of the proposed annexation subject to the
following conditions:
1. That final development plans be submitted to the staff for approval and that
slope planting be accomplished prior to the date annexation is final.
2. That the Council take immediate action to interim zone the property R-1-D
(single-family residential with architectural control).
PUBLIC HEARING - Ordinance Amendin9 Procedural Portion of Zonln~ Ordinance
Director of Planning Warren reviewed the ordinance, stating that copies have been
sent to the Commission with all of the changes as suggested at the last workshop
meeting. The new zoning ordinance will encompass this proposed ordinance; however,
the staff felt it necessary to adopt this section immediately ~nstead of waiting
for the entire new zoning ordinance ~o be adopted. Mr~ Warren then reviewed the
fee schedule suggested. He commented that the staff has taken a survey of the
different cities in the County comparing these figures.
Member Adams remarked that this ordinance will be part of the new zoning ordinance.
City Attorney Lindberg stated it would be and there may be further changes in this
before the new zoning ordinance is adopted.
Member Johnson asked about the proposed zoning board. Director Warren commented that
the new zoning ordinance contemplates a Zoning Administrator which would be the
Planning Director; however, this hasn't been set up yet.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Frank Ferreira, 3715 Putter Drive, Bonita, said he hasn't read the text of the
proposed ordinance but from the comments made tonight, he felt it wasn't fair ~or
an applicant to pay an additional fee for an appeal if his variance was den~ed.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
D~rector Warren explained the needed cost for an appeal, commenting that at present
there is only the $10 fee required for a variance appeal - this merely covers the
administrative costs. Chairman Stewart commented that even the $15 proposed fee
would not cover the actual cost of the City for an appeal.
D~rector Warren reiterated that th~s proposed fee schedule has been compared to
other cities our size; in some cities, the cost for an appeal is $50 and up.
RESOLUTION NO. 430 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending
MSUC (Adams-Johnson) to City Council the Adoption of an Ordinance Amending
the Procedural Portion of the Zoning Ordinance
Findings are as follows:
1. This ordinance will provide a zoning procedure which will offer a clear and
definite guide to property owners seeking zoning adjustments.
2. These procedures will protect the public welfare and sound community planning
and will assure the maximum degree of protection for individual property
r~ghts.
REPORT OF FINDINGS - Appeal by Victor Builders of Planning Commission Action Denying
Rezoning from R-3 to C-1 at 329-333 H Street
Director of Planning Warren referred to the report sent to each member of the
appeal of Victor Builders of the Commission action denying them a commercial rezoning
for their property at 329-333 H Street.
-lO-
The Commission concurred that the findings were in order.
MSUC (Guyer-Johnson) Approval of report of findings to be sent to the Council.
SUBDIVISION - Final Maps - Chula Vista Gardens~ Units #1 and #2
Director of Planning Warren submitted both maps of Chula Vista Gardens subdivision,
Units #1 and #2, noting the location as west of the proposed freeway 805 between
Naples and Oxford Streets. Unit #1 ~s located on the east end of the tract
abutting the freeway and Naples Street and contains 18 lots, while Unit #2 is
located at the west end of the subdivision at the northwest corner of East Oxford
Street and Nolan Avenue and contains 31 parcels. Director Warren noted that
Naples Street is being widened in this area and will eventually handle two-way
traffic. The staff recommends approval, subject to the Engineering comments.
Mr. William Harshman, Principal Engineer, stated their comments were self-explanatory
and asked the Commission to approve the maps based on these conditions.
MSUC (Guyer-Adams) Recorrmend approval of the tentative map of Chula Vista Gardens
Unit #1 subject to the following conditions:
1. The final map shall not be submitted for Council action until all fees are
paid and all necessary bonds, deeds, slope rights and easements as required
by the City Engineer have been delivered to the City.
2. The subdivider shall provide written evidence that he has obtained ownership
of that portion of land within the subdivision boundary now presently held
by the State of California, Division of Highways. This shall be done before
the final map is submitted for Council action.
3. The subdivider shall provide written evidence of having entered into an
agreement with California-American Water Company to provide water within the
subdivision prior to submission of the map for Council consideration.
MSUC (Guyer-Adams) Recommend approval of the tentative map of Chula Vista Garden
Unit #2 subject to the following conditions:
1. The final map shall not be submitted for Council action untll all fees are
paid and all necessary bonds, deeds, slope rights and easements as required
by the City Engineer have been delivered to the City.
2. The subdivider shall provide written evidence of having entered into an
agreement with California-American Water Company to provide water within the
subdivision prior to submission of the map for Council consideration.
3~ Right-of-way to the south of the subd~v~slon boundary, in addition to that
shown on the final map for East Oxford Street, must be acquired and dedicated
to the City by the subdivider to provide at least a minimum acceptable street
width. Such additional right-of-way must be submitted Jn fully executed form
prior to scheduling of this map for Council consideration.
~p_proval of Proposed Elementary School Site Adjacent to Flair Subdivision -
(formerly Les Chateaux Subdivisi6-~_)_
Director of Planning Warren noted on the subdivision map the 10 acre parcel
purchased by the School District for an elementary school site. He commented that
-11-
th~s site was discussed by the Commission at the time of the approval of the
tentative map but no official action was taken. This s~te was discussed with
the school district and the staff is recommending approval.
Member Johnson questioned whether landscaping can be made a condition of approval.
Director Warren declared that the City has very limited authority as far as schools
go. However, there is a school-park committee that meets regularly whose function
is to discuss parks adjacent to school sites. Mr. Warren added that the school
district locates these sites according to the number of children in an area; then
the staff reviews them to make sure, for instance, that a site hasn't been chosen
that would conflict with major streets, etc.
Chairman Stewart asked if it was an automatic procedure for the Park people to get
a look at these sites. D~rector Warren indicated that they were not directly
involved with the choosing of a site. Chairman Stewart felt it would be helpful
i~, after approval of a school site, the matter was referred to the Parks and
Recreation Commission.
MSUC (Johnson-Rice) Approval of school site located adjacent to the proposed Flair
Subdivision, approximately t,400 feet north of Orange Avenue based on the fact that
it seems to be well located to serve the potential neighborhood and there will
apparently be no conflict with traffic on major or collector streets. The Commission
also recommends that this matter be sent to the Parks & Recreation Committee for
study.
DISCUSSION - Non-Conformin9 Aspects of Shopping Center at H~lltop & Naples - C-N Zone
Director of Planning Warren explained that in the C-N zone, adopted May 10, 1966,
there is a provision requiring that within one year from written notification, certain
non-conforming aspects of such existing centers in this zone must be made conforming.
The staff has, consequently, studied two shopping centers involved: Telegraph Canyon
Road and L Street and the one at Hilltop and Naples. Mr. Warren indicated that it
would be impractical to take every aspect of the C-N zone and expect the property
owners to apply it; however, most of the provisions can be enforced, such as
landscaping, the use of pennants and signs, etc. Referring to the shopping center
at Hilltop and Naples, Mr. Warren stated this property was split up into three
ownerships, two of which are under one ownership. Letters have been prepared
to be sent to these property owners, but the staff felt this matter should be
discussed by the Commission as to the degree of compliance, etc. Mr. Warren
suggested a workshop meeting be called whereby the Commission will visit these
sights and discuss these aspects.
ehairman Stewart remarked that he was in favor of it and felt they could perhaps
bring this to the Commission first or second meeting in November.
Member Johnson asi~ed if any previous contact had been made with the property
owners to conform to the ordinance. Director Warren stated that the staff wanted
to start at this point first to determine with the Commission what is reasonable.
Member Johnson suggested the staff try to obtain a copy of a lease given the
store owners to determine their agreement as to trash pick-up,etc. Generally,
there is a committee formed of the store owners, and the head of the committee
would be a good person to contact in this case.
Director Warren said he will set up the date of the workshop and call the Commi~ion.
-12-
DISCUSSION - Permanent Zqnin~ at the Intersection of Melrose Avenue and Otay Val. l~y Road in Princess Manor Subdivision
Director of Planning Warren explained that approximately ll acres along the north
side of Otay Valley Road on either side of Melrose Avenue has been interim-zoned
R-1 for several years. In June 1966, Princess Park Estates, Inc., requested
that portions of this property be zoned M-l, C-2 and R-1. The Commission recom-
mended approval to the Council, and the Council placed it on the first reading;
however, before placing it on the second reading, they deferred it for 120 days
and sent it back to the Commission for reconsideration. The Council felt that the
new zoning ordinance would probably be adopted by this time which would offer an
industrial zone more compatible with the adjacent residential use. Mr. Warren
added that it now appears that because the new zoning ordinance has not been
adopted, that there is little action the Commission can take at this time.
Mr. Warren suggested that the Commission adopt just that portion of the Industrial
ordinance that would affect this property.
Member Adams asked if the Commission could be given more time on this.
City Attorney Lindberg stated that the Council made this request in light of the
adoption of the new zoning ordinance which they were told would take place in
120 days. He suggested the Commission report to the Council that the new zoning
ordinance is not ready for public hearing, but that they will give consideration
to adopting an industrial zone which would be appropriate for this property.
Member Adams stated this sounded reasonable and valid and suggested the Commission
go ahead and do this; also, that they should proceed with the enactment of the
zone that they feel would be suitable.
Director Warren indicated that the staff has run |nto problems with performance
standards in regard to this zone but these have been worked out with the County
Health Department. He added that this zone can be brought to the attention of
the Commission at the workshop meeting.
MSUC (Adams-Guyer) Set this mat%er for workshop meeting and send a report to the
Council stating that the Commission is proceeding along these lines and that
action will be initiated to adopt one of the new industrial zones which would be
appropriate for this property.
TO BE SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance Regulating Moving and Flashing Signs
Director of Planning reviewed the ordinance which he said was brief and simple
in text, prohibiting moving and intermittent or flashing signs in any zone.
Member Johnson questioned the moving and flashing temperature bulletin signs
such as on banks and loan buildings. Director Warren felt these could be worked
out by a variance.
RESOLUTION NO. 431 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Calling
MSUC (Guyer - Adams) a Public Hearing for November 7, 1966 to Consider
an Ordinance Amending Chapter 33 of the City Code
.. by Adding Thereto a New Section 33.61.3 Relating
to the Elimination of Moving and Intermittent or
Flashing Signs Throughout the City
Consultant's Visit
Chairman Stewart discussed the proposed visit of Mr. Syd Williams to meet with
the Commission in regard to discussing the new proposed zoning ordinance. Mr. Stewart
urged all members to attend this workshop meeting.
Director Warren stated that he has discussed with the new members the possibility
of having an additional special meeting to bring them up-to-date of what the
Commission and staff are doing ~n regard to this new zoning ordinance; however,
it is difficult to get the three of them together at one time. Mr. Warren noted
that Mr. W~lliams has agreed to come down for at leastmo additional meetings.
He added that he received a call from the State Planning Office in which they
asked that the City close out this program rather than ask for another extension.
At the last workshop meeting, the Commission felt they should take each category
separately, as far as public hearings were concerned.
The Commission discussed a possible date for the next workshop meeting, and it was
concurred that Monday, October 31 would be agreeable. Director Warren stated he
will call Mr. Williams and see if he could arrange to attend this meeting.
~ttendance at Meetings
Chairman Stewart declared that if any of the members of the Commission have previous
knowledge that they cannot attend a meeting, to call the staff and let them know.
Air-Conditioning in Council Chamber
Member Guyer suggested a letter be written to the Council requesting them to in-
vestigate the possibility of installing air-conditioning in the Council Chambers.
Member Adams suggested that push-button voting also be investigated.
Flood Control
City Attorney Lindberg stated that the Commission should set for hearing the rezoning
of all of Sweetwater Valley flood plain for the November 7 meeting. This would be
to apply the F~I and F-2 zones to just the flood control project.
Director Warren remarked that if the public hearing was set for the November 7
meeting, people will be wanting to come in and see the map, which hasn't been made
as yet. There is quite a bit of work which will have to be done on this. Member
Johnson commented that he was under the impression that this entire area was studied
and the map would be available.
City Attorney Lindberg commented that the Commission could set this for hearing for
the 21st of November, but he was not sure about getting an extension. Mr. Lindberg
added that similar ordinances have been adopted by San Diego and National City after
lengthy debates; but the need was just and apparent, and they adopted the ordinance.
RESOLUTION NO. 432 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Calling a
MSUC [Guyer~Adams) Public Hearing for November 21, 1966 to Consider Flood Plain
Zoning
ADJOURNMENT
MSUC (Johnson-Rice) Meeting adjourn to the workshop meeting of October 31, 1966, to
be held at 4:30 p.m. at the Planning Departme~ , Civic Center.
~]~espectfully submitted,
~'~'~ennie M . Fulasz, Secrg~ry