HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1968/06/03 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
June 3, 1968
The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California, was
held on the above date at 7 p.m., Monday, in the Council Chamber, Civic Center,
276 Guava Avenue, with the following members present: Stewart, York, Hyde, Gregson,
Rice, Adams, and Guyer. Absent: None. Also present: Director of Planning Warren,
Associate Planner Manganelli, Planning Draftsman Liuag, City Attorney Lindberg,
and Assistant City Engineer Gesley.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Adams-Gregson) Minutes of the meeting of May 20, 1968, be approved as mailed.
Tentative Map of Southwestern College Estates Subdivision, Unit #3
Director of Planning Warren noted the tentative map submitted for Unit #3 of the
Southwestern College Estates Subdivision; the original map submitted in 1962 has
expired. He noted the location as the east side of Otay Lakes Road, north of Elmhurst
Street and contains 117 single-family lots. The map does not conform to the original
tentative map since the alignment of "H" Street extension was not firm at that time.
Director Warren stated the staff recommends approval of the map subject to certain
conditions which he delineated. He discussed the double frontage lots and submitted
several alternatives for this development. The staff's recommendation is for a
6 foot wall at the top of the slope with landscaping provided through to the sidewalk.
Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, stated they would prefer alternate "D"
on the plan with the block wall immediately behind the sidewalk and the slopes being
the responsibility of the property owners. He discussed the City being responsible
for the maintenance of these slopes and stated that this has not been worked out with
the City Council and no budget for it has been set aside. He felt the landscaping
could be taken care of by the water rail, or other irrigation system, recommended
by the staff in their report, if this is connected to each individual home. The item
itself is minor and inexpensive; it is the time and effort involved to send men out
to turn this irrigation system on. If each individual home owner did his own, it would
be worth the effort. Mr. Gesley then noted three key lots on the proposed map which
he felt could have been avoided: Lots 256, 280 and 290.
The Commission discussed the maintenance of the slopes and concurred that positive
measures should be taken to see that this is done, because it will be bordering a
major thoroughfare.
Mr. Ray Swanner, representing Allied Contractors, Inc., the subdividers, stated they
are considering an entirely new concept with the "H" Street extension going through.
He felt the conditions of approval were drastic. He circulated a memo among the
Commissioners itemizing the estimated cost of improving "H" Street through this
subdivision. He stated that all paving should be done by gas tax funds. They do
not object to the requirement for the wall provided they can put in a redwood fence
with masonry posts as they have done in other subdivisions. Mr. Swanner then passed
around some photos taken of this type of fence. As far as the landscaping requirement,
they have no idea, at this point, what would be acceptable to the staff so they cannot
conm~ent on this. They are willing to dedicate, grade, and install curbs for this
right-of-way. Mainly, their objections are: (1) that they not be required to put
-2-
in the paving on "H" Street; (2) the sidewalk requirement: (3) street lights;
(4) masonry block wall - they prefer to put in a redwood fence; (5) cannot make
any comments concerning landscaping or sprinkling system because they do not know
what is required. Mr. Swanner compared this type of development to that on Orange
Avenue.
Director Warren indicated it was always helpful to have this information (cost of
improving "H'' Street) prior to a meeting, since it is difficult for the staff to
comment on it. In looking at the itemized list, he would question the 8 lots lost
through dedication ($36,000); how can they lose any lots through the dedication of
"H" Street which is a necessary street.
Chairman Stewart suggested a continuance in order to give the staff and subdividers
a chance to get together and resolve some of these differences. As to the require-
ment of a wall, Mr. Stewart claimed he would not favor the redwood fence. He dis-
cussed a problem they encountered with this type of fence in another subdivision
where one property owner painted his fence one color, his neighbor painted his
section of the fence another color, etc. Ultimately a wooden fence will deteriorate.
Director Warren remarked that in the several meetings the staff has had with the
subdividers, they were given to understand that the subdividers had no objections to
the requirement for a masonry wall. In reference to the general requirements for
"H" Street, the residents in this subdivision are not denied access to this street
and it will be a necessary street through this area. The requirement is for curb, gutter,
sidewalk and 40 feet of paving, with the City completing the center island and paving.
Mr. Gesley discussed the obligations of the different cities for the improvements of
major streets.
Mr. Swanner declared that they would prefer the matter not be continued.
Member York commented that at a recent workshop meeting, the Commission concurred that
they would not pursue the question of landscaping slopes until they received some
indication from the Council that the City would accept the maintenance of it. He
felt it was not fair to impose this on the home owners. He added he favored the wall
adjacent to the sidewalk rather than at the top of the slppe.
The Commission discussed the fence requirement. Director Warren commented that a
fence in back of the sidewalk would be a screen only to the pedestrians and that
maintenance of planting would not take place. Mr. Gesley felt the solution to this
problem would be to eliminate the double frontage lots, changing the patterns of
the street to run north-south and not east-west. City Attorney Lindberg stated there
would be no way of preventing a property owner from putting another wall on top of
the slope.
The Director discussed with the Commission the technicalities involved in metering
the irrigation system, such as hooking it all up to a common meter and then splitting
the cost among the property owners.
In answer to Member Hyde's inquiry, the City Attorney stated there is no legal
provision to require the home owners to maintain their slopes in this manner. Under
the Planned Unit Development Procedure, there is a given authority to require some
type of maintenance; however, this is not true of the subdivision ordinance.
Director Warren questioned the legality of requiring the subdivider to take care of
this maintenance--the subdivider can then pass this on to a Homeowners Association,
if he so chooses.
City Attorney Lindberg declared this would be fine--that the subdivider could perhaps
write this provision into his deeds, none of which can be enforced by the City.
MSUC (Hyde-Rice) Matter be continued to the meeting of June 17, 1968, to give the
staff and subdividers time to meet and resolve the problems discussed tonight.
PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit - Request by Salvation Army to establish a
thrift s~ore at 252 Third Avenue - C-1 zone
The application was read in which a request was made to operate a thrift store at
252 Third Avenue. They will be selling second-hand merchandise ranging from clothing
to furniture and appliances.
Director of Planning Warren indicated that the location is the southwest corner of
Third Avenue and Davidson Street. He then noted the rendering of the building submitted
by the applicant showing the proposed signs. The staff would question the sign on the
corner of the building. He spoke of the character established on Third Avenue which
is a retail operation, and the type of store operated by the Salvation Army. He
commented that while the Salvation Army operates a quality store, there is a fear
that a precedent would be established which would encourage those operations of less
quality to locate here.
Recently, upon Commission recommendation, the City Council adopted an amendment to
the zoning ordinance making the sate of used merchandise as a primary use, subject
to a conditional use permit in the C-1 zone. With this type of control, and subject
to certain conditions, the staff recommends approval. Mr. Warren then reviewed the
conditions of approval.
Chairman Stewart asked if there would be any sidewalk display or outside storage.
Director Warren stated that outside sales or displays are not permitted in this zone.
The storage of merchandise, to a certain extent, would be regulated by the Fire
Department; outside storage would be prohibited.
Director Warren then noted the letters of protest.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Major James Ellis, 728 K Street, San Diego, stated it was not their intent to put
anything in this community that the City would be ashamed of. The sign on the side
of the building is 3' x 4' done in red and yellow plastic. As to the storage of
outside material, there is no yard or room to do this. The store will be operated
by trained clerks and a manager--they will not be rehabilitation people.
-4-
Mr. Kenneth Dunn, one of the owners of Western Auto store, adjacent to this
proposed use, and Vice-President of the Downtown Association, spoke against the
request. He made it clear that he was not speaking against the Salvation Army
but merely about the effect of such an operation on the character of the area.
In their opinion, "a secondhand store is still a secondhand store"--it is impossible
to properly display this merchandise as opposed to new merchandise. He declared
that no formal notice was sent to any of the merchants on this street, and they
felt they should have been notified.
Mr. Dunn then submitted a petition signed by 72 people, representing 99% of the
merchants on this street, opposing this use. They feel this use would lead to
other objectionable types of businesses; that the Commission cannot perpetually
control this matter of storage, the quality of merchandise, etc. He asked that
this matter be continued for two weeks in order that the merchants on this street
can be polled to gain their feelings on the matter.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
Director Warren stated it was an oversight on the part of the staff that the
merchants in the area were not notified of this hearing. He did declare that
the staff met the legal requirements for the publication of the notice, and that
they did call several of the merchants this morning.
Four merchants in the audience stood up when the Chairman asked how many opposing
this request were in attendance.
Major Ellis commented that the Commission has held previous hearings on this matter
and none of these gentlemen showed up then.
Mr. Dunn explained that they felt the matter was taken care of when the Commission
recommended the adoption of an ordinance rewriting provisions for this use.
Chairman Stewart explained that the reason they took this action was to make sure
that the Commission would have adequate control over this type of use, by making
them apply for a conditional use permit, not that this particular use was objection-
able.
Member Hyde remarked that he appreciated the concern of the Downtown Association;
however, the reputation of this store is such that it would not downgrade the
existing condition on Third Avenue. He added that since eac~nuse will be considered
on its own merits, and with the control that the Commission now has over this use,
it would be compatible in the area.
Member Adams suggested the request be granted for a period of two years--after which
time the Commission would review it and, if not objectionable, they could extend
the use.
City Attorney Lindberg stated this review could be held as a public hearing and the
merchants in the area asked to express their opinions on it.
Major Ellis declared they would agree to this two-year time limitation.
Member York discussed the notices sent out and felt the matter should be continued
for a period of two weeks since the merchants were not notified until just this
morning. The petition they submitted was circulated on May 6. Mr. York added that
he is abstaining from voting on this hearing since he is a member of the Chamber of
Commerce and Downtown Association.
Mr. Vern Chandler, President of the Downtown Association, and Mrs. Disney, a
merchant in the area stated they did not receive notification of this hearing until
today and asked that the matter be continued.
MSUC (Guyer-Hyde with Member York abstaining) The public hearing be continued to
the meeting of June 17 and the staff be directed to notify the merchants in the area.
Member Rice extended apologies to Major Ellis for this delay.
For the record, City Attorney Lindberg stated the notices as mailed in this case,
complied with the requirements of the Code.
PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit - Request by Gordon Pettit to establish
a plant nursery in the Bonita Village Shoppin~ Center on Bonita
Road - C-1-D zone
The application was read in which a request was made to construct and operate a
plant nursery with tool and garden supplies on property in the Bonita Village
Shopping Center.
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the building
and also showed a rendering of the building. The signs would have to be submitted
for either staff or Commission approval at a later date. The applicant is also
requesting architectural approval of the building. Mr. Warren noted that the building
would have a shake shingle roof and cedar si~ing which matches the existing shopping
center. The access to this building will be through the service station site with a
40 foot wide vacant area adjacent to Bonita Road. The building itself will be located
80 feet south of Bonita Road and south of the existing barber shop and service station.
The staff would suggest that a condition be imposed whereby all fertilizers be kept
under a roof and not in the open area.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Gordon Pettit, President of the Shopping Center, stated he was present to
answer questions and had nothing to add to the Director's presentation. He stated
that the fertilizers, etc., would be stored in an enclosed area.
The Commission discussed this and felt it should be made a condition.
MSUC (Hyde-Gregson) Approval of conditional use permit subject to the condition that
all items other than living plant materials shall be stored within the building.
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.
The use proposed is not presently offered in this area and the architecture of
the building will be compatible with the area.
-6-
b. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working
in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
There is no item proposed for use in this operation which would be detrimental
to anyone's health or welfare.
c. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified
in the Code for such use.
The use will comply with the restrictions placed on it.
d. That the granting of this conditional use will not adversely affect the General
Plan of the City of Chula Vista or the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
PUBLIC HEARING: Rezonin~ - Property between Glover Court and Third Avenue, north
side of "D" Street - from R-1 to R-3 (includes property at 343
Street as requested by Jess G. Collinsworth
The application was read in which a request was made to rezone from R-1 to R-3
property at 343 "D" Street and property between Glover Court and Third Avenue.
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the area proposed for
rezoning. He noted the adjacent zonings and land use in the area. The original
request was for 343 "D" Street; however, the staff included in this proposal the area
between Glover Court and Third Avenue in order to make the zoning more logical, since
rezoning the one parcel requested would be creating a spot zone.
A petition was submitted to the staff this morning from the residents in the area
protesting this request. A few of them who have signed the petition have their
properties included in this rezoning pattern. It is not the staff's intent to
recommend rezoning if it is contrary to the wishes of the owners involved.
Director Warren commented that the area is presently in a period of transition, but
that the City should be careful not to hasten this period unless desired by those
directly involved.
Chairman Stewart asked if any discussions were held with the applicant regarding a
lot split and an R-1 use because of the depth of the lot. Director Warren indicated
there was not.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Jess Collinsworth, the applicant, stated no one approached him on the lot split
idea. He asked approval of the request declaring there were apartments already
within this vicinity.
Mr. Melvin Anderson, 89 Glover Court, stated he was the first purchaser of a home
in this area and has always opposed the gradual encroachment of multiple-family use
in the area. They are in an R-1 area and want it to stay that way. The introduction
of R-3 zoning here would downgrade the neighborhood and be an invasion of their
privacy. Approximately eight years ago, they opposed a similar request of Mrs. Farrell
in this neighborhood; at that time they were assured by members of the staff that ~his
-7-
area would remain single,family residential. By rezoning this parcel, the City
would be creating a spot zone and this is contrary to good zoning practice. Before
any rezoning is done, the Commission and the Council should demand overwhelming
justification and the people in the area should be considered first.
Mr. Claude Yates, 66 Glover Court, claimed he had this same thing happen to him,
and does not wish it on anyone else.
Dr. Robert Frazer, 321 "D" Street, expressed his opposition stating that it would
be premature to rezone it at this time. It would create an island of R-3 zoning
in an R-1 area.
Mr. Robert Lopez, 322 Kimball Terrace, Mr. John Bernhart, 99 Glover Court, David
Anderson, 322 Kimball Terrace, Donald Beck, 82 Glover Court, and Harold S. Young,
315 Kimball Terrace, voiced their opposition to the request reiterating the same
reasons as above: it is an R-1 area; the request is for the applicant's own selfish
interest; it would downgrade the area, and be an intrusion on their privacy.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
The Commission discussed the comments made by the protestants and considered the
recommendation of the Planning Director that the Commission deny the request unless
all property owners involved favored the rezoning.
Director Warren indicated that if this concerned just the applicant's parcel, it
would be something else; however, it would not be proper to impose zoning unnecessarily
on a property owner who was against it.
The Commission concurred.
MSUC (Gregson-Adams) Rezoning for property between Glover Court and Third Avenue,
north side of "D" Street, including the property at 343 "D" Street be denied based on
the following reasons:
1. Any rezoning in this vicinity should be on a comprehensive basis which would
include the remaining lots fronting on "D" Street from 343 easterly to Third Avenue.
Several of the property owners involved in this area opposed this rezoning. Rezoning
of one parcel, at this time, would represent "spot zoning" and would be contrary to
good zoning practice.
2. The Commissi~ recognizes that the General Plan projects high density residential
use for this area, but find that rezoning for such at this time would be premature
based on the existing conditions in the area.
The City Attorney reminded the applicant of his right to appea| this decision to the
City Council.
-8-
PUBLIC HEARING: Prezonin~ - 1225 Frontage Road - from County R-2-A to R-3 - George W. TrustS
The application was read in which a request was made for a prezoning from R-2-A to
R-3 of that property at 1225 Frontage Road.
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the proposed
prezoning, the adjacent land use and zoning. He also noted the alignment of the
widening of Interstate 5 in this area which he noted would eliminate most of the
existing trailer park owned by the applicant. The applicant proposed to construct a
trailer park on this property with access from his other property fronting on Frontage
Road. This one-acre parcel will be annexed to the City, and the staff recommends
approval.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. George Trusty, the applicant, stated the property comprises one acre of land on
which he will build another trailer park and maintain it the same as his existing one.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
The Commission discussed the proposal and concurred that it should be approved.
MSUC (Adams-Gregson) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to the
RESOLUTION No. 518 City Council Prezoning for Property at 1225 Frontage Road from
R-2-A to R-3
Findings be as follows:
a. At present the only other logical zoning choice is C-2 which would be ill-suited
for this parcel since it has no Palomar Street orientation.
b. The R-3 classification would be compatible with the land use and zoning in the
immediate vicinity of the property and would permit expansion of an existing use.
PUBLIC HEARING: Rezonin§ - Property east of Woodlawn Avenue, 300 feet south of "E"
Street - C-2 to R-3 Commission initiated
Director of Planning Warren stated this was Commission initiated at the request of
the staff. He submitted a plot plan noting the location of the area as that recently
approved by the Commission for a variance to construct apartment complex. The parcel
comprises 3.9 acres of land and is located on the east side of Woodlawn Avenue
between "E~' and "F" Streets. The staff recommends approval with the recommendation
that setbacks be established at 15 feet.
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.
The Commission concurred that the area should be rezoned.
MSUC ~Rice-Adams) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to the
RESOLUTION NO. 519 City Council the Change of Zone for Property East of Woodlawn
Avenue, 300 feet south of "E" Street from C-2 to R-3-D and Setbacks
to be Established at 15 feet
-9-
Findings be as follows:
a. A previous application for an R-3 use for the property was approved and good
zoning practice dictates that the use complies with the zoning of the property.
b. The subject property does not have the exposure to "E'~ Street needed to ~romote
commercial uses.
c. The R-3-D classification is compatible with the zoning and uses in the immediate
vicinity of the subject property.
Request for approval of apartment development plans in R-3-D zone - 370 "K" Street -
L. Kuebler
Director of Planning Warren stated that the staff was directed by the City Council
to notify the adjacent property owners when the Commission reviews the plans. This
is not a public hearing as such; however, anyone wishing to speak should be given the
opportunity to do so. Mr. Warren reviewed the matter of the rezoning and variance
granted for this development. He stated the area comprises 126,000 square feet on
which the applicant could be permited to construct 126 units; he proposes to construct
96 units. The nearest building to the south property line would be 44 feet; 5 feet
or 6 feet on the west property line. The buildings are limited to two-stories, and
the staff finds that the site plan is acceptable and will be developed in such a way
that it will not be incompatible with any of the adjacent uses.
Director Warren stated that he discussed with the applicant the "plant-ons" for
the rear of these buildings. He asked that the details be left up to the staff;
also that the sign as proposed is too large and out of scale and final approval of
the sign should be left up to the staff for approval. He then reviewed the conditions
of approval recommended by the staff.
City Attorney Lindberg discussed the proposed underground utility ordinance stating
the Council will soon be holding a public hearing on it. He felt it was important
that all new structures be required to underground their utility services.
Mr. Lawrence Kuebler, 373 "E" Street, stated he had no objection to working out
anything with the staff as to the 6 foot high fence on the west side of the property.
He also discussed the fact that he had four power poles at the rear of this property
and is presently getting an estimate from the Electric Company for the removal of these
poles and putting in the underground service. Because of the power poles, it may not
work out just right, he added.
Chairman Stewart felt the condition should stand, and if the applicant runs into any
problems, he can come back to the Commission.
Mr. Kuebler explained that he is proposing to put in trees at the front of the property
and he also agrees to put in the "plant-ons" at the rear of the buildings. He plans
to develop this project in two steps.
Mrs. Delia Kidd, 451 San Miguel,asked the height of the trees proposed for planting
on this project, and questioned the architecture of the building.
-10-
Director Warren indicated he presently did not know what height they would normally
grow to, not knowing the type of trees they propose to plant; however, the trees
will be 6 feet high at planting time. He then explained the architecture proposed,
stating the staff is trying to eliminate the stark stucco effect on the rear of
the buildings by suggesting these "plant-ons".
Mr. Arnold Stamer, 352 San Miguel Road, asked that special consideration be given to
the rear of the apartments ~acing the south side of the property.
Mrs. Madalon Bagnell, 819 Fourth Avenue, stated she wants a brick wall on the west
side adjacent to her property. Director Warren stated that the applicant is proposing
to put in a masonry wall with some sort of wooden fence on top.
Mrs. Bagnell declared this was not acceptable--she wants a brick wall. She discussed
the drainage problem stating she didn't want any water running onto her adjacent
property.
Chairman Stewart assured her that the Engineering Division will check these plans
thoroughly.
Mrs. Bagnell then questioned why the applicant is not proposing to put any trees on
her side of the fence (the west property line). Director Warren indicated it would
not be feasible to plant trees here as the applicant has only 5 feet of sideyard on
this side. He discussed the drainage stating that it will drain both to the north
and south.
Mr. Kuebler claimed he wilt attempt to drain everything to the north that he can, and
the rest to the south.
The Director and the Commission discussed using the "D" zone to regulate the drainage
for the property. City Attorney Lindberg stated the Engineering Division is obligated
to check out these plans and to make sure the water is running off onto the streets.
Director Warren confirmed this, stating the drainage plans will be sent to the
Engineering Division for approval.
Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, stated that all of this property, at the
present time, drains to the south. The applicant proposes to drain some of this
onto "K" Street. By ordinance, Mr. Kuebler isn't required to reduce any of it, but
he does plan to and, therefore, should be improving the existing drainage situation.
MSUC (Guyer-Hyde) Approval of the architectural and building plans subject to the
following conditions:
1. A total of fifteen on-site parking spaces shall be marked for "guest parking" at
locations subject to staff approval.
2. A minimum of five enclosed trash areas shall be provided to accon~odate the
containers used by the trash service company.
3. All utility service shall be underground from the street.
-11-
4. Architectural "plant-ons" shall be used on the south and west exterior elevations
facing said property lines. New elevation drawings shall be submitted for staff
approval.
5. Landscaping plans shall be approved by the staff prior to final inspection and
shall incorporate the 12 foot wide parkway area in the plan (either concrete with
tree wells or landscaped with 2 foot wide walk adjacent to curb). A minimum of
seven street trees shall be provided on the site.
6. A solid wall or fence, 6 feet high, shall be constructed along the southerly
and westerly property lines. The design and materials shall be subject to staff
approval.
7. Any signs shall be submitted for staff approval.
Request for approval of proposed Palomar Street closing
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan of the area. This was referred to
the Commission by the Division of Engineering. He noted the area for the proposed
vacation and the area which will be dedicated to the City. The staff recon~ends
approval.
Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, confirmed the Director's presentation.
MSUC (Rice-Hyde) Recommend approval of the vacation of this portion of Palomar Street
as indicated on the plot plan submitted at this meeting.
Request for clarification - Reference to proposed Tire-Battery-Accessory use for Big Apple Store - Fifth and H Street
Director of Planning Warren explained that the Big Apple store is contemplating a
tire-battery-accessory store in conjunction with their discount store. It will be
at the south elevation of the building, a few feet from the easterly edge of the
building. In the new ordinance, clarification is made as to what constitutes a
service station. The staff believes it is a use incidental to the operation of
the store and it should not require a conditional use permit. Director Warren suggested
that the Commission adopt a resolution allowing this tire-battery-accessory store as
an accessory use.
MSUC (Adams-Gregson) Resolution of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista,
RESOLUTION NO. 520 California, establishing a Tire-Battery -Accessory Store
as an Approved Accessory Use in the C-1 Zone
Final map - Mestler Manor, Units #3 and #4
Director of Planning Warren submitted a final map of Mestler Manor Subdivision,
Units #3 and #4 noting the location as south of Naples and east of Monserate Avenue.
The two units will contain 54 lots on 13 acres. The map is in general conformance with
the tentative map and the staff recommends appmoval subject to the conditions listed
by the Division of Engineering.
-12-
MSUC (York-Gregson) Recommend approval of final map of Mestler Manor, Units 3 and 4
subject to the following conditions:
1. Bonds for improvement of Unit No. 4 shall be submitted simultaneously with the
bonds for Unit No. 3.
2. 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.
Final map - Flair Subdivision, Unit No. 3
Director of Planning Warren submitted the final map of Flair Subdivision, Unit No. 3
noting the location as north of Orange Avenue and east of the proposed Interstate 8.
This unit contains 78 lots on 22 acres.
The staff recommends approval since it does conform to the tentative map. In
reference to the condition about landscaping, the original staff recommendation was
that before final grading is done on the slopes, a landscape plan shall be submitted,
etc.; he asked that this be changed to "before planting is done..."
Resolution establishing fourth Monday of every month for Planning Commission meeting
Director of Planning Warren asked that it is necessary for this resolution to be set
up in order to have the Commission to meet on this particular Monday.
MSUC (Rice-Guyer) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Establishing the
RESOLUTION NO. 521 Fourth Monday of every Month as a Regular Adjourned Planning
Commission Meeting
Planning Commissioners' Salaries
The Commission discussed the fact that in some cities, the Commissioners are paid
a small salary for serving on the Commission. Chairman Stewart remarked that he
felt it was worth looking into for this City in view of the fact that they are now
meeting once a week.
Oirector Warren stated that this proposal was given to the Charter Review Committee
about two or three years ago, but was disregarded. He felt some compensation is
justified.
City Attorney Lindberg stated it would have to be a Charter change, if a certain
amount is to be set up. The Council could set up a fixed amount per month on a
credit card basis, and the Commissioners could turn in a voucher--this would be a
reimbursement for car and mileage expenses. Mr. Lindberg explained the present
City Council budget for their expenses.
-13-
If the Commission feels they want a fixed amount for each meeting, it would
constitute a Charter change which could be put on a future ballot. He added
that he would take a further look at the problem.
Chairman Stewart asked the Attorney to discuss it with the Chief Administrative
Officer and the iqayor.
Director Warren indicated this would be done and added that they will also talk
with the different cities and see what their justifications are for their
compensations.
Vacation for Chairman Stewart
Chairman Stewart asked permission to be out of the city starting next Monday,
June 10th through the 24th. He will be on vacation.
MSUC (Rice-Hyde) Permission for Chairman Stewart to be absent from June lO through
June 24.
ADJOURNMENT
MSUC (Hyde-Guyer) Meeting adjourn to the special meeting of June 10, 1968 which will
be held at 7 p.m. in the Council Chamber and to the next regular meetings of June 17
and 24. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully s~bmitted,
..?Jennie M. Fulasz
~ Secretary