HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1968/06/17 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
June 17, 1968
The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on the
above date in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Guava Avenue, with the
following members present: Stewart, York, Gregson, Rice, Adams, and Guyer.
Absent: Member Hyde (with previous notification). Also present: Director of
Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, Assistant Planner Lee, Planning
Draftman Liuag, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley.
STATEMENT
The Secretary of the Commission states that she did post, within 24 hours of
the meeting as required by law, the order for the adjourned meetings of June 17
and June 24.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Adams-Gregson) Approval of the minutes of May 27 and June 3, 1968, as
mailed.
Subdivision - Tentative Map - Cont'd/ Southwestern Colle§e Estates Unit #3
Director of Planning Warren submitted the tentative map noting the location as the
east side of Otay Lakes Road and north of Elmhurst Street. He noted that this
matter was continued from the meeting of June 3 at which time the Commission
directed the staff to meet with the subdividers to try to resolve some of the
questions that came up at this meeting. The staff did meet with the subdividers
and could not reach any definite agreement. The basic decision is whether or
not they will be able to utilize double frontage lots; the staff is recommending
that they do.
Director Warren added that there are alternatives: a frontage road, a series of
T-intersections, or an alley to the rear. He then reviewed the staff's recom-
mendations for approval. As to the landscaping of the slope, the staff would
recommend that this become the owner's responsibility for each lot, as it would
be illogical to burden the city with this responsibility. The staff feels that
if the wall is to be effective here, it should be at the top of the slope rather
than at the sidewalk level.
Mr. Ray Swanner, representing Allied Contractors, Inc., discussed the two meetings
held with members of the staff and introduced Mr. Craig to the Commission.
Mr. James Craig, Civil Engineer, San Diego, passed to the Commissioners a Street
and Highway Standards Brochure put out by the City of San Diego. He discussed
the 102 foot width of the road as recommended by the City Engineer stating that
it is wider than projected on this chart. The number of cars that will use this
road in one day in the year 1990 will be approximately 16,000. The San Diego
chart projects a figure of 25,000 for this width of right-of-way. He added that
they allow direct access onto these streets; they do not allow it onto freeways
and expressways.
-2-
Member Adams inquired as to the standard for H Street beginning at Third Avenue.
Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, stated they are planning on using
the existing right-of-way onto Hilltop Drive; the right-of-way is 80 feet which
was established quite some time ago. There will be 64 feet of paving--this is
in line with the League of California Cities standards.
Director Warren asked Mr. Craig about San Diego's restriction on double frontage
lots. In those cases where double frontage lots were used, he asked if this was
voluntary.
Mr. Craig declared they were used due to a requirement of F.H.A.
Mr. Swanner stated he is developing this subdivision with F.H.A. He added that
they are finding themselves in a situation where F.H.A. will not approve the
lots on "H" Street because of the proposed width of the street. Economics get
out of hand when you build a double street for single lots.
Mr. Swarmer then discussed the landscaping on the slopes. He stated that to
fence the owner in on his own property and shutting off his view by requiring the
fence at the top of the slope is not desirable. There is nothing to prevent him
from taking off a portion of the top of the fence so that he could get a view, and
none of these property owners will climb over the wall to maintain the landscaping
on the slope. Over the years and through their experience, they have found that
the property owner below the bank should own the slope and maintain it. In this
case, the City will own it.
Mr. Swarmer then compared this subdivision with that of Allied Gardens on Waring
Road in San Diego. He felt the best solution here would be to have frontage on
H Street, then they can have level land with the slopes on the back of the lot.
Member York asked if he would then put an alley on the back of the lots.
Mr. Swanner remarked that this would not be feasible because the alley would be
so high in the air that it would serve no purpose. They would have a T-driveway
with side garages so that the property owners would have room to turn around and
go straight out on the road instead of backing into it.
Mr. Gesley discussed the standards for streets and highways as used by the City
and compared it with the one for San Diego. He declared there was very little
difference between the two.
Director Warren remarked that even if these two standards are different, Chula
Vista has adopted its own standards and these are the ones the subdivider will
have to abide by.
The Commission discussed the standards for the proposed traffic count of 16,000.
Mr. Warren commented that they did receive some information on this from the
County, but that they pointed out that some of their figures were inaccurate. The
staff is trying to determine now just what this basis should be; at this point,
they don't know whether it is a minimum or a maximum. Ultimately they feel it
could be less than that.
-3-
Member York commented that they have a real problem here, and he has mixed emotions
on having the slope outside the wall and have it maintained by turning it over
to the City. He added that they must determine which is the lesser of the two
evils: having the slopes on H Street or at the back of the lots. He would
suggest a condition that these driveways be constructed in such a manner that
these people have room to turn around on the site. Mr. York then asked for the
traffic count on E Street.
Mr. Gesley stated the traffic could on E Street east of First Avenue was 10,230
as of February of this year. West of Broadway, it was 20,100 as of last July.
This is averaged out over five days to determine a count for a 24-hour period.
Member Rice felt they should go along with the staff's recommendation to put the
5 foot high wall on top of the slope and then turn it over to the City for
maintenance, and to have the double frontage lots with no traffic coming onto
H Street. Also, that each property owner have their own water meter and pay
their proportionate share.
Member York asked the City Attorney if the Commission could impose on the sub-
divider the condition of providing proper space on the site for turn-around.
City Attorney Lindberg commented that the subdivider has agreed to this, and
that this could be a proper condition to impose on the subdivider if the Commis-
sion is going to allow access onto H Street. As to the City taking care of the
maintenance of the slopes, generally, they try to avoid this. Their major concern
is for areas that have real public use. Mr. Lindberg added that he would question
whether the City would want to take on the maintenance of these slopes.
Member Adams commented that what they do with this small strip of H Street,
they will have to do with the continuation of the Street, perhaps for another
four to five miles.
Member Gregson declared it would be a far better looking street with the slopes
at the rear of the lots.
The Commission discussed the same type of development on Orange Avenue and the
problems incurred there.
Member York indicated he was in favor of having the lots graded down to H Street,
the slopes at the rear of the lots, and access onto H Street.
Director Warren stated that if the Commission gave them permission to do this,
the subdivider will have to submit another map.
Mr. Swanner declared they already have this map designed and will be submitting it.
The Commission asked if all possible solutions have been explored on this problem.
Director Warren declared it had and the most acceptable to the staff is the
frontage road which seems to be out of the question. However, with some provision
whereby automobiles would not be allowed to back out of the lots, the traffic
here would be improved.
-4-
Mr. Gesley commented that if they don't have double frontage lots, then denying
access to H Street is the best solution as far as traffic is concerned. However,
if they have enough space to have the people drive out frontwards to the street,
this would be the best solution.
MSUC (York-Gregson) The tentative map submitted ~t this meeting be filed and
the subdivider be directed to submit another map showing access to and frontage
on H Street, and to provide facilities for property owners to turn around on
their site so that they will not have to back onto H Street.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance
re§ulating the establishment of mobile home parks
Director of Planning Warren informed the Commission that this item was indirectly
related to the public hearing for a mobile home park which follows on this agenda.
However, they should concern themselves only with the specific proposal before
them. He explained that in the new zoning ordinance, there is a modifying "M"
zone relating to mobile home parks. This has been studied by the Planning Commis-
sion which has approved it in a preliminary form. This supplemental zone can be
attached to any residential zone and would require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission and City Council and, if approved, the mobile home park
could be constructed with certain standards.
The staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider either the "M"
zone or the Unclassified Uses Section which would permit a mobile home park in
any residential zone subject to a conditional use permit. The staff would
recommend the inclusion of mobile home parks in the Unclassified Uses Section,
subject to certain conditions, since this method would require only the one
public hearing by the Planning Commission.
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.
Director Warren discussed the condition relating to density. He indicated that
the Commission may wish to change this to eliminate the requirement, that it be
guided by the minimum density required by the underlying zone. The Commission
should decide what type of character a mobile home park best related to--it is
a low density development and not a single-family development. On the other
hand, a mobile home park is based on a higher density to make it feasible.
Mr. Warren added that the Commission would want to follow this up with the
adoption of a resolution setting up just where these would be provided for.
City Attorney Lindberg discussed the controlling factor in the underlying density.
He stated that under the present ordinance, they are not required to maintain the
density of the underlying zone.
Chairman Stewart suggested this flexibility be maintained with a request to the
staff that after the adoption of the zoning ordinance they bring up the resolution
again.
Director Warren indicated they will, along with other factors.
-5-
Member York declared it was true that it does not relate to multiple-family
or single-family development type. It relates to a planned unit development
or town houses because of the normal amenities included in this type of develop-
ment.
Member Adams discussed the underlying zoning commenting that if it was R-l, it
would mean that the developer would be permitred to put one mobile home on each
7,000 square foot lot. He added that this matter of the underlying density
should not be in the ordinance at all; under a conditional use permit, they
could require a lower density if there is a minimum.
MSUC (Guyer-Rice) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending
RESOLUTION NO. 522 to the City Council the inclusion of Mobile Home Parks in
the Unclassified Uses Section
This resolution be subject to the following requirements:
1. The wheels or any similar transporting devices of any mobile home
shall not be removed except for repairs, nor shall such mobile home
be otherwise permanently fixed to the ground in a manner that would
prevent ready removal of said mobile home.
2. Sanitary regulations prescribed by the State, City, and/or County,
together with all amendments thereto subsequently adopted, and as
may otherwise be required by law, shall be complied wi th, in addition
to the following regulations:
a. Any mobile home site shall have a minimum site area of five (5)
acres, and shall be developed to a density not in excess of
four thousand (4,000) square feet per mobile home in aggregate
area of the land so developed.
b. Any mobile home park shall contain one or more developed recreation
spaces with an aggregate area of two hundred (200) square feet
per mobile home site in said park.
c. The mobile homes and other buildings in any mobile home park shall
not occupy in the aggregate more than forty-five per cent (45%) of
the area of the site.
d. All areas used for automobile access and parking shall comply with
the applicable provisions of this ordinance.
e. All areas not used for access, parking, circulation, buildings and
services shall be completely and permanently landscapped and the
entire site maintained in good condition.
f. All buildings and mobile homes shall be located not less than
twenty feet (20') from all exterior street lot lines of the mobile
home park.
g. Site plan and architectural approval is required as provided in
Section 33.54.6 through 33.54.10 of the Zoning Ordinance.
h. Mobile home parks shall be excluded from all commercial and
industrial zones.
-6-
Under discussion, City Attorney Lindberg explained that this would add to the
list of unclassified uses a mobile home park provided all such uses shall
be excluded from industrial and commercial zones. He added that the Commission
should set forth the standards by resolution including the location of such.
PUBLIC HEARING: Prezonin9 (Cont'd) - Property on the east side of Otay Lakes
Road approximately 1-1/4 miles south of Bonita Road - Request
for R-2 (from County unzoned) - Willard Layton
Director of Planning Warren stated that this item and the conditional use permit
request which follows is related and perhaps the Commission should consider both
at the same time.
Director Warren explained that the first hearing concerns the prezoning request
to R-3. The property is situated considerably above Otay Lakes Road and the
finished grade of the mobile home park will be at an elevation approximately
200 feet above Acacia Avenue. The reason for the R-3 prezoning request was
because it was the only procedure available in the ordinance for a mobile home
park. Now the Commission can consider the conditional use permit with the
amendment just adopted.
There will be no lots fronting on Otay Lakes Road, but there will be lots
along the northerly and easterly edge of the project. The access to the park
will be from Otay Lakes Road only. There will be quite a bit of open space in
this project and there will have to be extensive grading on this site in order
to develop it. One thing the staff has requested is a detailed grading plan
to be approved by the staff.
The basic question is where a mobile home park should 9o. This particular
development will be of high quality compared to other mobile home parks in the
City. Mr. Warren declared that somewhere along the line, Sweetwater Valley
has to stop--it does not physically go on indefinitely to the college and the
high school. The Commission must base its decision on the General Plan and
the relationship to the adjacent development. A B-12 density zoning would
permit development that wo~td return a fair yield on the site. He added that
he is not necessarily speaking in favor of having a mobile home park on this site--
if it is approved here, it would establish a precedent if allowed to 9o on.
On the other hand, they are talking about a low-density mobile home park. In
the event this prezoning and conditional use permit are approved, the staff has
a list of conditions they would ask be imposed imposed. Mr. Warren then reviewed
and discussed the proposed conditions.
The Commission discussed the recommendation of R-l-B-12 zoning for this site.
Director Warren commented that if they are going to be allowed to construct in
this area, they should go in with a density of B-12. The Commission has to
determine if this density is appropriate. One unit per 4,000 to 9,000 square
feet of land area is low density for a mobile home park. The staff would like
to see the Commission establish some sort of policy as to what areas they
consider as appropriate areas for mobile home parks. They do not want to see
the density such that mobile home parks can be encouraged here instead of single-
family.
-7-
City Attorney Lindberg reviewed the findings the Commission must make in
recommending the approval of the prezoning to B-12 and the findings in granting
a conditional use permit for this mobile home park. He added that the Commis-
sion should keep the concept separate even though they are going to hear it at
the same time.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened on
items 4 and 5.
Mr. Alan Perry, Attorney representing the developer, stated they agree to the
R-l-B-12 recommendation and to the list of conditions for the conditional use
permit. He declared they are withdrawing their request for R-3 zoning and are
now requesting the R-l-B-12. They would also request that the Commission
recommend to the City Council the adoption of placing mobile home parks in the
Unclassified Uses Section (item 3 on this agenda). They indicated to the
Commission at the last hearing that the density proposed would not be consistent
with that of the General Plan.
The land is not zoned in the County and there is the matter of topography.
Mr. Perry then submitted a topographical map of the area noting the elevation
of the proposed development: the bulk of the land will be leveled off at 350
feet; it will be from 275' to 375' from Otay Lakes Road; 250' from Acacia.
Mr. Perry advocated the condition of some type of aesthetic screening where
it would be proper to do so. He added that this project will be associated with
Otay Lakes Road and not Acacia Avenue. They ask that the Commission give serious
consideration to their proposal of 9,000 square foot density.
Member Adams asked how much variation there will be when the grading is done.
Mr. Sardagna, designer of the project, stated that the high points will have to
be cut down and the low points filled up. The highest peak is 463' and the mean
average will be 430'. The low point will be 360'; the northerly 9 acres of
the site will not be developed.
Mrs. William Spies, Jr., residing on the west end of Allen School Lane, stated
she was a Director of the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association and is representing
that Association in opposing this application. She claimed it would set a
precedent which could very easily be the first step in changing the character
of the Valley. She admitted that there has to be a line drawn where their juris-
diction lies; however, this site is only 1-1/4 miles from Bonita Road. If approved,
it will clearly affect the Valley. All of the other requests for mobile home parks
that have been turned down by the County will now come back and make their requests
again. Mrs. Spies remarked that several weeks ago, Mayor McCorquodale spoke to
the people in the Valley assuring them that it was the aim of the City of Chula
Vista to retain the character of the area and that the City would help them.
Mrs. Spies added that a representative of the mobile home project called upon them
Saturday afternoon and showed them the plans for the development. The land is
not going to be sold to this corporation--it will be leased. These representatives
also stated that in 20 years, this development would be completely obsolete. With
this area being so close to the college, the people in the Valley feel it would
be better not to have this mobile home park here. It would set a precedent. She
further added that a good home is not obsolete in 20 years as this mobile home
park will be. As to the proposed R-l-B-12 zoning, they would rather see it go
20,000 square feet (R-I-B-20).
-8-
Mr. William Hawes, 4225 Camino del Cerro Grande, stated he was not opposed to
the R-l-B-12 but was opposed to the conditional use permit to allow a mobile home
park in this area because it would (1) violate the General Plan which shows a low
density for the area; (2) it will necessitate a considerable amount of grading;
(3) cause a problem in relation to the schools, such as vandalism, traffic,
additional bus service, etc.
Dr. R. Thompson, Acacia Avenue, posed the question that if trailer parks were
needed so badly here, why haven't they been permitted before.
Mr. Perry stated that the topography of the land is such that a great deal of
grading would have to be done. They will present to the City an aesthetic
looking park, and further study will be given to the grading. He remarked that
the current mobile home park is obsolete in 20 9ears; however, it will not be
true of this park. They can obtain financing for 30 years.
Mrs. Alvin May, 4295 Acacia Avenue, spoke of her concern for the grading that
will take place commenting that there has been a great deal of mudding in this
area in the past. She contended that this will flood the people living below
this project, if grading is allowed and all the weeds are removed.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
Director Warren stated there are two additional recommendations that the staff
would want to make on the conditional use permit, if approved: (1) additional
right-of-way for Otay Lakes Road shall be dedicated to the City of Chula Vista
as determined by the City Engineer; (2) all public improvements, including street
lights, shall be constructed on Otay Lakes Road, subject to the approval of
the City Engineer. Mr. Warren added that they overlooked these two items before
the public hearing was closed, but that they should be added because they are
very important.
Mr. Perry stated these conditions were acceptable to the applicant.
MSUC (Adams-Guyer) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to
RESOLUTION NO. 523 the City Council Prezoning of Property on the east side of
Otay Lakes Road, approximately 1-1/4 miles south of Bonita
Road.
Findings of fact are as follows:
1. The R-l-B-12 classification would be a logical transition between the
R-l-B-20 zoning to the north and the R-1 zoning to the south.
2. The severity of the topography necessitates a density lower than that
permitted by the R-1 zone.
-9-
Discussion for motion for:
PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit (Cont'd) - Property o n the east side of
Otay Lakes Road approximately 1-1/4 miles south of Bonita Road -
Request for mobile home park in R-3 zone - Willard Layton
Member Adams commented that he has changed his attitude toward mobile home parks
in the last four or five years. They should not look down on these developments
and should give them better locations than they have had in the past.
Director Warren remarked that this project would require more detailed approval
by the staff especially in regard to the landscaping. He added that the Commis-
sion may want to make some special provision for screen planting.
Mr. Sardagna assured the Commission that all the slopes will be landscaped and so
will the fencing. There is no problem here.
Member Adams felt there was not much chance of establishing a precedent for
mobile home parks in this area--the site is well situated and will be suitably
screened.
Chairman Stewart discussed the proposed density of the park. He commented that
the minimum lot size in Chula Vista is 7000 square feet, and they are proposing
9000 square foot density.
The Commission discussed the drainage problem in regard to this area.
Director Warren declared that every effort will be made by the staff to prevent
the same type of grading problem as that which occurred at Bonita Bel Aire.
City Attorney suggested that condition #9 be expanded to indicate that grading
plans would be reviewed in accordance with the grading ordinance which is
presently under contemplation for adoption by the City Council.
MSUC (Gregson-Adams) Approval of conditional use permit for mobile home park
subject to the following conditions:
1. The density of the development shall not exceed that as shown on the plot
plan submitted with the application.
2. The wheels or any similar transporting devices of any mobile home shall not
be removed except for repairs, nor shall such mobile home be otherwise
permanentl$ fixed to the ground in a manner that would prevent ready removal
of said mobile home.
3. Sanitary regulations prescribed by the State, City, and/or County, together
with all amendments thereto subsequently adopted, and as may otherwise be
required by law, shall be complied with.
4. All areas used for automobile access and parking shall comply with the
applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
5. All areas not used for access, parking, circulation, buildings and services
shall be completely and permanently landscaped and the entire site maintained
in good condition.
-10-
6. All buildings and mobile homes shall be located not less than twenty (20)
feet from all exterior street lot lines of the mobile home park.
7. Any mobile home park shall contain one or more developed recreation spaces
with an aggregate area of two hundred (200) square feet per mobile home site
in said park.
8. Site plan, architectural plans, and landscaping plans shall be subject to
the approval of the Commission.
9. Grading plans shall be submitted to the staff for approval and shall generally
be in accordance with the proposed new grading ordinance which is presently
under contemplation for adoption by the City Council.
lO. The hearing and decision granting this conditional use permit is conditioned
upon the adoption of the amendment to the ordinance placing this use in the
Unclassified Use Section, and subject conditional use permit will not become
effective until the effective date of the amendment.
11. Additional right-of-way for Otay Lakes Road shall be dedicated to t~e C~ty
of Chula Vista as determined by the City Engineer.
12. All public improvements, including street lights, shall be constructed on
Otay Lakes Road, subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
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. This mobile home park would provide a
facility presently unavailable in this area and would place it in an attractive
and well-planned setting.
b. That the use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the heal~h, safety or general welfare of persons residing or
working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
The terrain would provide a distinct topographical separation between this use and
any existing or future uses.
c. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions
specified in the Code for such use. Ordinance requirements and the conditions
imposed would insure compliance with the Code.
d. That the granting of this conditional use will not adverse|y affect the
General Plan of the City of Chula Vista or the adopted plan of any governmental
agency. The Genera~ Plan would not be adversely affected by this proposal.
The Chairman advised the opponents of their right to appeal this decision.
City Attorney explained that the zoning matter will automatically go to the City
Council and they will hold a public heaming on it. The conditional use permit
will not go to the Council unless appealed within l0 days of the date of this
action. The conditional use permit will not be effective unless the City Council
adopts the modification to the zoning ordinance adding this use to the Unclassified
Use Section.
-ll-
PUBLIC HEARING: Prezoning - PropertS west of Hilltop Drive along both sides
Orange Avenue (Frome Subdivision) from CountS R-1-A and C to
R-3-B-3-D and C-N - Jafro, Inc.
The application was read in which a request was made for prezoning to R-3-B-3-D
and C-N that property west of Hilltop Drive along both sides of Orange Avenue.
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the area. He noted
that the application was not signed by the owner of the parcel zoned C-N
although the advertisement included this area.
City Attorney Lindberg stated that the ordinance requires either the owner or
his representative sign the application, or it could be initiated by the
Commission or the City Council.
The Commission asked if the owner was present; it was noted that he was not.
Director Warren indicated that he did discuss this proposal with the owner on
the telephone--they discussed the validity of the request.
City Attorney Lindberg recommended that this specific item be set for hearing--
the Commission can initiate this hearing.
MSUC (York-Rice) The presently zoned commercial portion of this area be
excluded from this hearing and readvertised for prezoning at a later date.
Director Warren stated the request was for R-3-B-3-D to accommodate some type
of low cost housing and probably along the lines of a split duplex. He
cautioned the Commission that there was no guarantee of this.
In answer to Member York's i~quiry, City Attorney Lindberg stated that the
matter of prezoning is handled the same as that of zoning, with the additional
step of annexation. The Commission can add the requirement of the subdivision
map being approved. This would be concurrent with the annexation process. A
subdivision map has been approved by the County for this property, and the
subdivider would be splitting each parcel in this development by a parcel map.
Mr. Lindberg added that the next three items on the agenda (rezoning--variance--
subdivision map) are all related to this item.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. John Morgan, 584 Corte Maria, a principal of Jafro, Incorporated, stated
that the commercial property in this area does not belong to them. He added
that the owner, Mr. Frome, has authorized him to submit this property to the
City for annexation.
The Commission and Mr. Morgan discussed annexation procedures and prezoning of
this property.
City Attorney Lindberg declared that the Commission or City Council can
initiate prezoning contrary to the express desires of the property owner, but
we cannot go any further than that.
-12-
Mr. Morgan discussed his subdivisions--Units l, 2, 3, 4 of Holiday Estates.
He commented that the homes sold for $18,200 to $18,850 and the cost of these
homes is consistently going up. These same homes within the next two years
will be $25,000 to $26,000. He discussed the average income of the people
in Chula Vista which is $7400 and to buy one of their homes, they must have
an average income of $9100. Therefore, in order to provide homes for these
people, they have designed this particular complex they are submitting tonight:
it will be a duplex with each property owner having a fee title to each lot.
They will be getting a smaller lot, but the home will be constructed in the
same manner and materials as they are developing now.
Mr. Warren noted that the staff has received 116 individually signed letters
objecting to this request.
Those speaking in opposition to the request were: Lee Campbell, 1585 Hilltop
Drive (spokesman for the group); Arthur Smoch, 1565 Hilltop Drive; Mrs. L.
Campbell, 1585 Hilltop Drive; Mr. Frederick Payea, 1641 Hilltop Drive; Robert
McKay, 1439 Hilltop Drive; Ronald Landry, 1627 Jade Street; and Clarence Jearls,
1 Orange Avenue. They stated as their reasons: (1) this is a pilot program,
and they do not feel this area, surrounded by R-1 development, is the place
to experiment with low-cost duplex housing; (2) do not object to the developers
making a good profit, however, they can make as much if not more by building
single-family homes; (3) this would not be in the civic interest; (4) if some-
thing went wrong with this development, it would be an eyesore to the single-
family homes facing the project; (5) General Plan calls for medium density--
this proposal is for 3,000 square foot lots, thereby making it a high density
development; (6) would not object to condominiums because the grounds would be
kept up--there is no~'assurance of that here; (7) the homes in the last unit
this subdivider built have completely sold--even though the prices are higher;
(8) their school (Loma Verde) is only four years old but already overcrowded--
first graders are housed in portable classrooms and kindergarteners are trans-
ported to two different schools; (9) it will cause heavy congestion; (10) it
will downgrade their properties; (11) they were told the property would be
annexed to the City of Chula Vista and developed with single-family ho~$ on
7,000 square foot lots; (12) the project as such has social ramifications;
(13) it could generate transient people--these people have less responsibility,
they will not take care of their properties; (14) (Jearls) the property
originally belonged to him and he sold it to Frome with the understanding
that it would be subdivided into 7,000 square foot lots and the homes would
sell for over $20,000; they immediately had it rezoned in the County to 6,000
square foot lots; (15) the people living here will not have to pay as much
taxes and the protestants feel they do not want to subsidize these people.
Mr. Morgan stated that regardless of whether or not they build this subdivision,
a new school has to be built; the school district has already purchased a
site north of Main Street. These are not duplexes--each owner will have their
own individual lots. On the 20 acres, they will have 154 units or 7-1/2 homes
per acre.
Mr. Warren indicated that the Commission can require the submission of a map,
if they so desire.
-13-
Mr. Jack Gardner, 665 Broadway, co-owner of this development, stated that they
have worked with the FHA on this. The homes will be 816 square feet and 1308
square feet in area. They plan to sell them for $15,500 to $17,500. He spoke
of the housing shortage in the area and the need for these low-cost homes.
There being no further con~nent, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
Chairman Stewart discussed another subdivision in which the Commission approved
a similar request. However, they haven't completed any of these homes yet.
He added that perhaps something needs to be done, but in a businesslike way.
If the City does change its land use requirements, it should be after a thorough
study by the staff and they should decide where this type of unit should be
placed and there should be a limitation on the number of them. There must be
a procedure to follow where the density will be doubled and still adhere to the
standards we have had in Chula Vista all these years.
Member Rice discussed the land use surrounding the other development (Hilltop
Drive and Quintard Street) and commented that he would like a chance to evaluate
this development before he decides on this one.
Member Adams remarked that he was never intrigued with the other development and
doesn't like this one any better. He is not in favor of it.
Member York disagreed indicating that this was a different trend of development.
He is a little apprehensive about it because they did approve the other one on
an experimental basis. He added that the Commission should take into consider-
ation the size of the homes they propose to build on these lots, and it should
be a better development than that previously approved.
Director Warren noted the subdivision map these developers had approved in the
County. He stated it was a single-family subdivision map. He discussed their
proposed concept indicating that it will need a lot more publicity before the
public will accept it. He stated that they do have to provide some low-cost
housing, and this may be a right step in that direction. He agreed that they
should give some thought to studying this matter, especially as to location,
site plan, etc.
MEMBER Rice agreed adding that the study should indicate how many of these
developments could be accommodated in Chula Vista and where this type of
development could be suitably located in the City.
Member York suggested the staff line up some similar developments in other
areas that the Commission can look at. He felt they will be getting more
pressure to approve these, and stated that there is a place for them in the
community.
The Commission discussed the applicant's annexation request and proposed
prezoning.
Mr. Morgan asked that it all be set aside and he will start over again.
-14-
City Attorney Lindberg stated that if the Commission just continues it until
after a study has been made, the staff would have to readvertise it. They
should continue it to a certain date.
Mr. Warren suggested it be continued to the meeting of July 15 and then it can
be continued again, if they so desire.
The Commission discussed the following three items on the agenda and felt they
were related to this item and should be continued also.
MSUC (York-Adams) Continue this matter to the meeting of July 15, 1968 and the
staff be directed to make a study of the provision for tow and moderate cost
housing in general.
MSUC (York-Rice) At the meeting of July 15, 1968, the public hearing will be
opened on this item.
City Attorney Lindberg commented that the testimony given tonight on this
matter will be made a part of the record and need not be repeated at the meeting
of July 15.
PUBLIC HEARING: Rezonin~ (Cont'd) - Area alon~ both sides of Orange Avenue
approximately 700' West of Hilltop Drive - ML1 to R-3-B-3 -
Jafro~ Inc.
MSUC (York-Rice) This matter be continued to the meeting of July 15, 1968.
PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - Area alon§ both sides of Orange Avenue approximately
700' west of Hilltop Drive - Request for reduction of minimum
lot size from 7000 square feet to 3000 square feet; side yard
from 5' t0 0,; lot frontage from 50' to 25'~ and reduction
of offstreet parkin§ requirements from 1-1/2 to 1 space per
unit - Jafro, Inc.
MSUC (York-Rice) This matter be continued to the meeting of July 15, 1968.
Subdivision - Tentative Map - Holiday Estates, Unit~ #5 and #6
MSUC (York-Rice) This matter be continued to the meeting of July 15, 1968.
Subdivision - Tentative Map - Chula Vista Gardens~ Units #6, #7 an~.~8
Subdivision - Tentative Map - Palomar Gardens
Subdivision - Tentative Map - Nacion Estates
Director of Planning Warren stated these subdivisions are all closely related
and are being constructed by the same developer and thus should be discussed
together.
-15-
Mr. Kenneth Lee, Assistant Planner, noted the location of each of the subdivi-
sions:
Chula Vista Gardens - located north of Palomar Street and east of Nolan Avenue.
The area encompasses 19-1/2 acres with the major portion located within the
Palomar Gardens Subdivision. This new map would supersede the Palomar Plaza
tentative map and includes a section of land lying north of the subdivision
adjacent to Chula Vista Gardens #5.
Palomar Gardens - located south side of Palomar Street, abutting the Palomar
Elementary School to the west. The total site encompasses 7.3 acres and
contains 30 lots.
Nacion Estates - located northeast of Flair Annex and south of the San Diego
Gas & Electric easement. It will be subdivided into 79 R-1 lots on 17 acres
of land.
Mr. Lee discussed the street layout and the general pattern of the proposed
subdivisions.
Director Warren reviewed the conditions recommended by the staff for approval
of the maps.
Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, delineated the conditions of the
Engineering Department.
Mr. Dennis Wittman, President of Saratoga Development Company, discussed the
street pattemn proposed. He commented that in order to get a satisfactory
alignment for Nacion Avenue, they had to acquire additional land. They have
no objection to the normal City requirements they have to put in. In Chula
Vista Gardens, Units 6, 7, 8, a portion of this property is presently under a
lease from Otay Ranch which passed to them when the land was purchased. At
this time, Mr. Wittman declared, he is not in a position to make a decision
on the property proposed for possible commercial development. They may be
able to utilize this portion under lease for R-3 development or something
else--at this time, he does not want to say what the zoning should be on
this--it is complicated by the lease.
He has no objection to the condition of extending the street through Palomar
Gardens to the park. He mentioned here that they are going underground with
large pipes rather than an open channel as they did in Flair Subdivision. The
pipes will be 84' and 54' which costs $40 to $60 per linear foot.
Mr. Wittman then discussed Nacion which is a collector street. He noted that
when these streets feed into a highway system, the City is eligible for certain
tax funds under the Unruh Act. He has no objections to putting in offsite
requirements. Under this particular Act, if they put in $1. worth of improve-
ments, the city gets back $2 from the State. They are willing to put in 24
feet of paving, but feel the City should put in the rest. As to the requirement
of 3" paving, they do not feel this is right--they recently put in 2" paving
on Nacion on either side of this and would like to do the same here. He
then discussed the requirement for a 12' roadway for the offsite sewer,
commenting that the normal width is 8', and questioned who would be required
to maintain the roadway.
-16-
Director Warren questioned retaining the commercial zoned parcel. The
staff feels there is no need for this type zoning here.
Mr. Wittman agreed, but commented that perhaps within 10 years there
might be a need for it. He reiterated that at this point he doesn't
know what his plans are for the area; if it doesn't go R-3 or Commercial,
then he will put in a cul-de-sac and develop it R-1.
Director Warren indicated that they will be confronted with 6 R-1 proper-
ties south of Palomar Street the owners of which will be inquiring as to
what is going to happen across the street. The staff report states that
the Commission is approving single-family lots - they should not be
approved if this is a commercial site. What they are doing is setting up
6 single-family lots across from a potential commercial cneter. If it
is an R-1 development, then it should be designed as such or take it
out of the subdivision. More than anything else, it relates to the develop-
ment south of Palomar.
Mr. Wittman maintained that it was realistic to leave large areas to be
developed in a logical sequence. He proposed to leave it as it is and
decide at some time in the future what to do with it.
Mr. Warren indicated that in the Commission's approval of Palomar Gardens,
with this configuration ~f lots of the subdivision to the south, they are
essentially putting the subdivider on notice that they expect R-1
development heme~
Mr. Gesley discussed the road requirement for the sewers. Normally, he
stated, the sewers go in the streets, but when they are placed elsewhere,
the City requires an access road. An 8' width is inadequate - the city
feels a 10' or 12' width is necessary when a road is required. The 3"
of A.C. was a requirement passed by resolution of the Council approximately
one year ago. The extra l" is for the structural section. As to the
improvements and regarding the gas tax funds, this matter is handled by
a recommendation from the Engineering Division to the City Council.
Mr. Wittman pointed out that in the configuration of Nacion Avenue, there
is an irregular alignment with the State Highway. In order to make this
function properly, they utilized a 400' radius rather than 500' on the
curve - this has been done many times.
Member York commented that Mr. Wittman raised a valid point on this
condition of a 12' access road. He asked if this was a new requirement -
putting in a 12' road to have access to a manhole.
Mr. Gesley explained that this easement will be outside the normal lots.
It will be along side the sewer, but not directly in line with the sewer.
The roadway can be worked out in some way to get to the manholes - this
will be fine with the Engineering Division.
MSUC (York-Adams) Recommend approval of the tentative map of Chula Vista
Gardens, Units 6, 7-8 subject to the following conditions:
-17-
1. The proposed alignment of Nolan Avenue would create a small illegal
lot, shown as Lot "A'~ on the tentative map. The subdivider shall
effect a transfer of ownership so as to incorporate the parcel
into the adjacent legal parcel, reserving any slope easements as
may be necessary.
2. The subdivider shall provide permanent slope rights as necessary for
the protection of street improvements.
3. The subdivider shall construct a 12 foot wide road to provide
access to the offsite sewer manholes. The type of road constructed
shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. Easements for
this shall be provided as required.
4. A l0 foot sewer easement shall be provided over all sewers.
5. The north half of Palomar Street shall be fully improved including
street lights, with the public improvements required for the first
unit.
6. Note No. 14 on the tentative map shall be deleted and slopes shall
be installed in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution No. 127.
7. A portion of Lot 165 is not presently owned by the subdivider, but
has been dedicated to the City of Chula Vista. The method of
handling this portion of Lot 165 shall be worked out with the engineer-
ing staff.
8. All public improvements shall be in conformance with the standard
specifications and standard drawings of the City of Chula Vista.
9. The subdivider is required to acquire and dedicate that portion of
Oneida Street outside the subdivision boundary.
10. The minimum A.C. paving on Nacion Avenue shall be 3 inches, per
Resolution No. 3077.
11. Lot 209 shall grant a permanent maintenance agreement to Lots 158,
159, and 160 for slope planting maintenance.
12. Lots shall be graded to eliminate any "flat spots" near top of
slope.
13. Approval shall be subject to verification by San Diego Gas & Electric
to be filed with the City confirming the alignment of Nacion as
being acceptable to them prior to filing a final map. Unless the
alignment to the south is acceptable to the San Diego Gas & Electric
Company, it will necessitate realignment of that segment to the north
of Palomar Street.
-18-
14. Side yard setback along the street frontage on all corner lots shall
be a minimum of 10 feet on this subdivision except for lot #209 which
shall maintain a 15 foot minimum.
MSUC (York-Rice) Recommend approval of tentative map of Palomar Gardens,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The tentative map shall be redrawn and resubmitted for Planning
Commission or staff approval prior to the submission of a final
map. The redrawn map shall reflect:
a. B Street, instead of terminating in a cul-de-sac should be
extended as a stub street terminating at the northerly
property line of the City park site.
b. Redesign of lots because of this new street design shall be
subject to staff approval.
c. The side yard setback along the street frontage on all corner
lots should be a minimum of 10 feet.
d. The south portion of Lots 25 and 26 starting at the bottom of
slope and carrying through to the subdivision boundary
shall be deeded to the City for park purposes and deleted
from the subdivision.
e. Slopes on Lot 7 and 30 shall be redrawn to reflect top of
slope at the 10 foot setback line.
2. At the intersection of two local streets, curb returns shall have a
minimum radius of 20 feet. At any intersection including a major or
collector street, curb returns shall have a minimum radius of 30 feet.
3. Note No. 15 on the tentative map shall be deleted and slopes shall be
installed in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution No. 127.
4. The subdivider shall construct a 12 foot wide road, to provide access
to the offsite sewer manholes. The type of road constructed shall be
subject to approval of the city Engineer. Easements for this shall be
provided as required.
5. A l0 foot sewer easement shall be provided over all sewers.
6. Lot "A" shown on the tentative map shall be deeded to the owner of the
property to the north.
7. All public improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the
standard specifications and standard plans.
8. The public improvements on Palomar Street shall be constructed per
Standard Drawing No. lO1.
9. The minimum A.C. paving on Palomar Street shall be 3 inches per
Resolution No. 3077.
-19-
MSUC (Rice-York) Recommend approval of tentative map of Nacion Estates
subject to the following conditions:
1. The tentative map shall be redrawn and resubmitted for City staff
approval prior to the submission of a final map. The redrawn map
should reflect the following:
a. The side yard setback along the street frontage on all corner
lots should be a minimum of 10 feet.
b. Spruce Street and "B" Street shall terminate in cul-de-sacs with
lot lines and slopes redrawn accordingly.
c. Nacion Avenue shall be extended to meet Palomar Street with an
alignment submitted to City Engineer for approval prior to the
acceptance of a final map by the Planning Commission. The sub-
divider shall construct full street improvements including street
lights for Nacion Avenue northerly of the subdivision boundary
through the San Diego Gas & Electric Company right-of-way to
Palomar Street. The City will acquire necessary right-of-way.
The improvements shall be in accordance with the typical section
shown for a 51 foot street on the tentative map.
d. The minimum centerline radius on Nacion Avenue shall be 400 feet.
e. At the intersection of two local streets, curb returns shall
have a minimum radius of 20 feet. At any intersection including
a major or collector street, curb returns shall have a minimum
radius of 30 feet.
2. All public improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the
standard specifications and standard drawings of the City of Chula Vista.
3. The minimum A.C. paving on Nacion Avenue shall be 3 inches, per
Resolution No. 3077.
PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - 300 Fourth Avenue - Request for reduction of
front yard setback from 15' to 7' Robert Miles
The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction of front
yard setback from 15' to 7' for the purpose of constructing an office building.
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location and the
adjacent land use, He stated that this was a difficult piece of property to
develop. He showed a large plot plan of the site and noted the proposed
parking which will be at the rear of the site. Mr. Warren then reviewed the
staff's conditions if approved.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
-20-
Mr. Robert Miles, the applicant, declared that they have tried numerous plans
for this site, and it is a problem because of the configuration of the lot.
This is the best plan they have been able to devise. He stated that the condi-
tions are acceptable. They propose to put in $3000 worth of landscaping.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was
declared closed.
The Commission discussed the plan and felt the request was a reasonable one.
MSUC (Adams-Guyer) Approval of the variance request subject to the following
conditions:
1. All proposed signs shall be submitted for staff approval and shall be flush
building signs.
2. A landscaping plan for the entire site shall be submitted prior to completion
of framing inspection by the City incorporating the following:
a. The parkway area along Center Street shall be filled with concrete and
tree wells provided per City specifications.
b. All trees required shall be a minimum of 6 feet in height.
c. An irrigation plan shall be included.
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. Because of the triangular shape
of the lot, adequate parking cannot be properly accommodated without the reduc-
tion in front setback.
(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 has frontage on two streets with a minimum setback of 5 feet on Center
Street and 15 feet on Fourth Avenue. The proposed plan will represent a compro-
mise between the two. The existing building east of this proposal enjoys a O'
setback.
(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 variance will not be injurious
to the property since the adjoining property to the north has an 8 foot overhang
beyond the 15 foot setback line and is oriented primarily towards "F~' Street.
The adjoining building to the east enjoys a O' setback.
(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.
-21 -
PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - 232 Church Avenue - Request for R-3 use in a C-2
zone - Margaret and Joseph Wilms
The application was read in which a request was made for permission to construct
a 5-unit apartment building on the property which is in a C-2 zone.
Director of Planning Warren remarked that the Commission recently approved a
variance for a comparable project and upon appeal to the City Council a 1:1
parking ratio was approved. This property is also in the parking district;
therefore, no offstreet parking is required except as required by the Commission
as a condition of the variance. Mr. Warren noted the dimensions of the
proposed building and reviewed the staff's conditions of approval.
City Attorney Lindberg stated that in regard to paving the alley, he asked that
this condition be expanded to state that the applicants sign an agreement
attesting to the fact that they will not protest paying their share of the
paving of the alley if such improvement project is approved by the City.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Joseph Wilms, the applicant, stated the conditions are acceptable and he will
be willing to sign the agreement.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
Member Adams declared that he objected to having part of the parking allowed
on the public parking lots. The tenants will be parking on the street instead
of paying for their parking.
Member York felt they should not require apartments to have to put in more
parking in these areas.
Mr. Warren commented that, in this case, the public parking lot is about 50'
away.
City Attorney Lindberg commented that they all recognize the difficulties on
this. When you establish a parking district, you establish certain obligations
on the property owners and it is not spelled out in the Ordinance the fact that
resident uses, especially in zones that are designated for commercial develop-
ment, will have to provide their share of offstreet parking.
Director Warren suggested they ask the City Council to do something about this.
After further discussion on the subject, Mr. Warren stated that the staff will
initiate the procedure for this.
Chairman Stewart agreed that the ordinance should be modified for the parking
districts.
-22-
MSUC (Rice-Guyer) Variance be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The front setback shall be a minimum of 15 feet.
2. The site plan, architecture, and landscaping shall be subject to the
approval of the staff--only a rough schematic plan was submitted with the
application.
3. Any permanent sign to be erected on the property shall confom~ to R-3
regulations.
4. The applicant shall sign an agreement prepared by the City Attorney
attesting to the fact that they will not protest paying their share of
the paving of the adjacent alley if, at such time in the future, an improve-
ment project is approved by the City.
5. The northerly edge of the building shall be placed on the north side
setback line to create a larger space between the building and the apartment
building to the south.
Findings be as follows:
(a) That the strict application of the zoning regulations or requirements would
result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the
general purpose and intent of the regulations. The existing zoning is inappro-
priate for the area which is primarily improved with residential uses.
(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
street does not have sufficient exposure needed for commercial uses.
(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. Since the proposed use is compatible
with the uses existing, there will be no detrimental effect.
(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 by the approval of this
request.
PUBLIC H£~RING: Variance - 236 Del Mar Avenue - Request for reduction of front
yard setback from 25' to 15' - Louis and Carmen Gerken
The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction of front
yard setback from 25' to 15' for the purpose of constructing an apartment
building.
-23-
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, adjacent
land use and zoning. He pointed out the existing buildings on both sides of
Del Mar Avenue comply with the 25' setback requirement. While the staff believes
that a 25' setback is excessive for an apartment complex, especially on a local
street of this type, no exceptional circumstances exist that would justify the
granting of the variance. For this reason, the staff recommends denial of the
request. If, howe~er, the Commission desires to grant the variance for this
change of setback, a hearing should be called to reduce the setback for the
entire street on a comprehensive basis rather than piecemeal.
Chairman Stewart noted that many of these homes will be ready for redevelopment
before too long.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Louis Gerken, 328 Kimball Terrace, the applicant, stated that the property
is in a high density area and he tried to design something adhering to the
1-1/2 to 1 parking ratio. Mr. Gerken added that his building will be an improve-
ment in the area since most of the homes here are old.
Mr. Herbert Gilky, 862 Ash Street, owner of property in this block, stated he
was in favor of this 15' setback. He favored multiple-family development in
this area since it is so close to the shopping center.
There bei~ng no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
Member York felt there was sufficient grounds to grant this variance--that
the exceptional circumstances were that the who~ area should be developed this
way. He further stated that they should not hold up this application while
they call a public hearing to reestablish the setbacks along this whole street.
Director Warren pointed out to the Commission that if they grant this variance,
they commit themselves to the rest of this area before a public hearing.
Chairman Stewart directed the staff to set for public hearing the change of
setback for this area at a time when the agenda can accommodate it.
MSUC (York-Adams) Approval of variance, the findings to be submitted by the
staff at the next meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed amendment to Zoning Ordinance establishing parking
requirements for dance halls.
Director of Planning Warren discussed the proposed amendment relating to
Dance Halls and the provisions for offstreet parking as recommended by the
staff. The staff recommends that the Commission recommend this provision to
the City Council for adoption.
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.
-24-
The Commission concurred that the provision for offstreet parking was an
appropriate one.
MSUC (Guyer-York) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending
RESOLUTION NO. 524 to the City Council an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
Establishing Parking Regulations for Dance Halls.
The following parking provisions to be added to the amendment:
USE PARKING
Restaurants, Bars & Nightclubs I space for each 2.5 permanent seats,
excluding any dance floor or assembly area
without fixed seats which shall be calculated
separately as 1 space per 50 sq. ft. of
floor area used for such purpose.
Dance Halls and Assembly Halls 1 for each 50 sq. ft. of floor area used
without fixed seats, Exhibition for assembly or dancing.
Halls except Church assembly rooms
in conjunction with Auditorium,Non-
Profit Clubs and Lodges
PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit (Cont'd) - Request by Salvation Army
to establish a thrift store at 252 Third Avenue - C-1 zone
Director of Planning Warren referred to a letter, a copy of which was sent to
the members, from Major Ellis of the Salvation Army withdrawing their request
to operate a thrift store at 252 Third Avenue.
MSUC (York-Rice) The matter be filed.
Requests for extensions of time:
a. Conditional Use Permit for convalescent home - east side of Third Avenue,
140' north of "D" Street - R. H. Woodward
MSUC (Rice-York) Approval of extension of time to July 6, 1969, with the condi-
tion that the utility service from the existing lines shall be placed underground.
b. Variance and Conditional Use Permit - Service station at the southeast corner
of Bonita Road and Bonita Glen Drive - Shell .Oil Company
MSUC (Rice-York) Approval of extension of time to July 6, 1969.
c. Variance - Model home area for Flair Annex Subdivision - Le Chateaux
MSUC (Rice-York) Approval of extension of time to June 5, 1970.
-25-
Written Communications
The secretary read a memo from Mr. Fred A. Ross, Chief Administrative Officer,
stating that the Commission not appoint a Chairman or Vice-Chairman until such
time as new appointments or reappointments are made.
Zoning Ordinance Hearin§
MSUC (Rice-Adams) The next public hearing on the proposed zoning ordinance be
set for July 29, 1968.
ADJOURNMENT
MSUC (Rice-Gregson) Meeting adjourn to the meeting of June 24th. The meeting
adjourned at 12:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~Jennie M. Fulasz
Secretary