HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1966/06/20 M~JTES OF A REGULAR A2JOURNEC MEETING OF THE
C~T~ PLANNING COMMISSION
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
June 20, 1966
The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California,
was held on the above date at 7 p.m., ~n the Council Chamber~ Civic Center, with the
followlng members present: Stevenson, Stewart, Adams, and Gufer. Absent: Members Smith,
Johnson and Vaden. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner
Manganell~, Planning Draftsman Irish and Pr~ncipa~ Engineer Harshman.
STATEMENT
The Secretary of the Commission hereby states that she did post within 24 hours of
adjournment, as provided by law, the order for the adjourned meeting of June 6, 1966.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Stewart=Guyer) Minutes of the meeting of June 6, 1966, be approved, as mailed.
PUBLIC HEARING (Cont"d) - PERMANENT ZONING - Sweetwater Valley Annexation No. 2 - to R=I-B-20=D and A-D
Director of Planning Warren noted the location and the area which was annexed to the City,
stating the zoning of this area was continued from the meeting of May 2, 1966, ~n order
for the annexation to be complete before permanent zoning is established. Mr. Warren
them delineated the areas to be zoned R-1-B-20-D and A-~ in this annexation.
This being the time amd place as advertised, t~e continued public hearJmg was opened.
'There being no comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
RESOLUTION NO. 405 Resolution of the City PlanNing Commission Recommending
MSUC (Guyer-Adams) to the City Council The Change of Zone for Sweetwater
Valley Annexation No~ 2~
That permanent zoning be to R-1-B-20-D (single=family, 20,000 square foot lots with
~r'chitectural control) and A-D (agriculture with archltectural control).
The findings of fact in support of said determination are as follows::
I. That property to be zoned R-I-B-20-D lies adjacent to such zoning and use
now and can properly accommodate thi~ density of development.
2. The remaining property consists of a golf course or land ]n the flood plain
and ~s not suitable for other development at th~s time.
CONDiTiONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING - Harrls-lurner Corporation - Kromschroeder & Assoco
2800 Bonita Road = ConvaJescemt Facility in R-3-D Zone (Relocation)
The appticatlon was read ~n which a request was made to relocate the convalescent
facility to a new location at 2800 Bonita Road.
Director of Fl,~.'~'~r'g W~re:n submitted a plot plan ~ot~g t~e new l~c..~tio,~ of ~he con-
valescent f~c~i~t¥ ~s T:ha~ rec~n'r:ly approved by th~ Comr~iss~o~ for ~ zo.'e cha~ge to
C-I fo~ the pLrpose o¢ co-~strucc~ng a service statior~ At: tfe ;~e~!~g of
19657 the Comr~;s,~o~ approved the site for thls cor:va~c;sce.*t home :;:2 th:t ¢ree approx[-
m-~te~y 200 fe~ft to the e;.'st of th~¢ p~oposed s]t~.. M~. Warrfn then ~oted the location
previous me,st~g f~2r ~ chmange of zo~Je for ~he xerv~ce :.ta(:~oT= thst t~e 5~te be changed
w~[h that: of the co:~¢~s,escer, t home so that t:h~:s coqv~6~¢ce;:~ f~c~';ity wou~d sBrve as a
Director War,e;; then s, cbmitted the plot plar~ f2r the proposed comrvale~ceqt f~cil~ty
d~.scussi~9 t~e~r prop2;ed park;ng layout. S~ce there a~e some smal~ problems
assoc]ateJ w]th the layout:, he asked that the Commiss~or; approve the parking tn concept
only a~nd th¢[ det~[~ed plans be subm]tted to the P[~n~9 Department for approval.
th~ applicators ha*,e had a few pr;biers meeting the require?er:~ of ~he S~a~e; however,
these have Row bee~ solved.
TFis being the tiaa a~d pl;~ce e' adsert~sed, the publTc bme4~r~ag was
Mr. Franck E. F'erre~rs, 3715 Putter Brlve, ~;nlta, stated he spp~ied for a zone change
for th~s ase~ abo~t 10 weeks ago, c-:nd ~t: v,,'a:s the Coma :;sio:x"5 des~;-e at %h:~t tlme
that t:k6 co:qvalescent facility be relocated, lhe propo:~eats o¢ the f:~c~l~ty were
sold by the Sta~e t2 c~e up w(th ~ore recreatlo',a'] are.'; therefore, by mov~a9 ~he~r
facility, they wilt be able to do
Member Ouyer quest~o;ned the distance of the p.~,t~o; to 5ar;d~dwood Dr~ve,
Mr. Ferre~ra n~ted the pat~os would extend 1~ feet f¢oa the ~u~d~r,g, the green area
tO feet, 7 feet fear the monolithic curb and 2 feet behind th.~t for the property li~e -
all thi,~'gs co,.:;s~dered~ he would e~t~aate the d~st.~(:ce of the bu;ldiag to the curb
to be 31
~rector W~rre~, t~e.q rev~e,,~d tke cor~d~t:~or,~ the ~[~ff would ~, k De ~mposed,
;,0~733o~, 257 Euc:*lyptc; Court. '~;ey state~ as their re.uso?s: (i) wr, et~ they pur-
they ~,%sumed ~t: wo~;d be f~;rthor east; (3) d~d sot ~:xpe, ct ~?? ~:ype of cor;me~c ~ use
the zot,~ng b~::ck t:o
D~a:ctor W~rre' 6xp~;.O¢,ed tko ch:.r~ge of the s~te for the co~v~]escen~ fsc~i~ty, stating
Hr, Ferre~r~ poOr, ted out t:h:~t ~t wou~d b6 over 400 feel frO.r' ~r~ Joh,'SO~'! S yard to
There belr:g zo fLiT'th6,¢ comr~ent, ~ther for or rsg~,~r;:st, tls he:flog was declared closed.
V~ce~Cha~rman Stewart d~scussed the relocation of the convalescent home stating that
from a plan~ng point of v~ew~ the change is a good one° ~e ~oted that many of the
opponents purchased their homes here w~thout checking ~nto the uses that are allowed
~n the Ro3 zone which is adjacent to their homes~
Chairman Stevenson remarked that the applicant could put in apartment units over this
e~tire area without coming to the Commls~ion for approval, and that although the R-3
zoning a~d th~s convalescent facility may not be the best use for this area, it is
far better tha~ h.~ving a service station or~ this $~te~ ~.e ~oted that the proposed
service statio~ w~ll .now have to find a new l~c~tlon which wo~d be closer to the
Freeway al~g~me~to
Member Adams c.~me~ted that he opposed the commercial zoning for the ~erv~ce station
.~d s~d he w~shed these people had come to tha~ meeti~g to le~d h~m their support
~t tk~at t~me~ ~owever, having th~s convalescent facility o~ th~ site and the pro~
posed ~ervice station further to the east is~ ha fe]t~ the right way to arrange the
zoning ~n th~s area~ ~e added that he feels these people w~ll find that this
Facility ~s no more objectionable tha~ a~y apartment development, and declared that
a~nce the commercial ~oni~g ~as been established for th~ s~te~ there would be no way
of k~owi~g whether the applicant would want to extend commercial z~n~ng further to
the south~ This could be do~e s~ce the precedent has already been established there
~or this commerc~a! zon~ngo
MS'~£ (Adsms-~tewart) Recommended approwl of the new location for the convalescent
facility ~ubject to t~e foll owi~g cond~tions~
1. The applicant shall submit building elevations and s~gn proposals to the
Commission for approval prior to the ~ssuance of a building permit°
~andscap~ng plans shall be submitted to the staff for approval°
Street tree~ shall be provided on ~on~ta Road and ~ar~da~wood ~rive at 50'
The pa'~kir~g pt~n ~s approved ~ concept o~ly~ Deta~le~ parking plan to be approved
by the ~.~rect.or of Planning prior to obtaining a building permJto
Furt~:~'r~ f~r~dings be ~s follow,s:
I. That the granting of the cor:ditional use permit will not be materially detriI
mental to the public health, safety or welfare, sinc~ th~s would not produce
any of the objectionable f.s~ctors outlined in the ord[na~:%eo
2. The chsrac~:er~st~cs of the u~e proposed are reason.:~bty compatible with the types
of use permltted in the surround[ng areas? since the proposed fac'ility will be
~ o~eistory structure wlth attractively landscaped g[oundso The architecture
arid s~gms w~ll be reviewed by the Commission to ~ns~re co~p.:~,b,lity~° ' since the
'~O'~ classification has been placed on the property'.
VARIANCES
PC!~[~C ~I£ARt~C - F~Tr~s=Turr~er Corp° -, 2800 ~on~ta Road ~ Setback reduction - 15~ to 10'
~f~ ~spp~c~t~on wes read in which a reqdest was made for a reduction ~n setback from
!5~ to lO~ ~:]or~g Sanda~woo~ Drive for the purpose of ~onsLr~cLing a c~)nvalescent
f;~ci~ty (the prevlous applicat~On) o
-3-
1~o..~,o.: of the proposed
g]rectoir of Pl3nr iLg Warren submitted ~.~ plot pea:". noting the
re, ciliary ;=~d th=; pcrpose of the variance request. T'he sefb:~zk (15~ t:o tO") wou~d be
primarily fo' o[i*e cor~er of the development: th.~t borde':..~; on :h',?d'z~woad Dr[ye.
~Jlt~m¢;cely, the ~pp~]~c¢;~ts w~l~ be dedicating the street, ~r,';d ~t th~s po~r:t., the staff
~s not ~ure whether they w]1~ be ~eed[ng :~ ¢~r,anc6 ir, that (::~6~ ,e~ertheJe~s,
the setb~ck wiJ ;':J be est::b~shM ~her: thor street ts ded~c.::,ted, b~t for c]~ri~f~c~t~on
p ~ 6ccordance ~[th
now, ]t m~;t be poOr. Led out that ~t ~ould be fo~ the e~Lere
p,~:~ce advertised, the public
Mr. F~ank Ferret-a, 37]5 ~utter Br~ve, representing the app!l~ca,~t:;, ~oted the distances
f~om the curb to t:~e propg:~ed bu~dlng, stating the bu~ ~d]:ng w~ be .~pprox~mateiy 31'
from t~e curb; th~_; woutd allow for the t4~ pat~o::, ~0 of ~,r. dscap~ng, and 7'
monolithic curb,
There being no further c~mt, elther for or ag~nst, the r,e:srlng w;¢s declared closed.
The Commission d~t;cdsfed the request a~d concurred th.at tt~y h&d no objections.
MSdC (GuyeriAdams) Var~:nse request for setback red~ct~:)r~ from 15 feat to ~0 feet on
a :da!wood Dr~ve be approved ~ accordance with th~ plot pl on f~te (patlos lO~
from t~e property l~e - buTld~r:g 24~ fr~ property
F~mdings be as
l. 'Fr, ere ~re practical d~fferences and unnecessary ..H-~,, .,w,*4~"~ w~t:h~n the meaning of
Ord;n~i~ce %0. 398 as amended which wou~d reault ~n the strict
prov~s~o~c, of s~=~d ordinance. So stated es del~ner~:ed below.
2~ ,There are exceptional circumstances a:d conditions appreciable to the property
hereto: involved or the intended ur:e thereof th4:;t d.c~ ~ot cpply generally to
prope'rt/ o¢ (:]f~ of use~ ~n the s:~:~ zone. ':Fha m~ or port,on of the building
w~i] exceed t~e required 15" setb~,ck, thus th~: ~nt:e:. t of the ordJ~ance w[I] be
s~t of~ed~ On]~y t:-:e pet]os will project ~r~zo the setb:,cK area. ]'~;e peculiar
:~rape of the property causes theprob[¢'m~..
nece~sar'y for the applicant to des]g~ an odd-shaped end inefficient building.
4. Grant~ng th'Jr v~r]ance w~lf ~ot be meLar~iy detr~r:~::t to the public weifare
....
or ;mjur¢ous to the property improvements ;ir~ the z)ne or
the bu~ldfng beck ir, excess of the t5~ required.
FdBL~C HEARING - Jeanette and T~deusz P~ekm~k - 667 :'h~rd Avenue - R-/ Use [n C-I Zone
The application was read in which a reque~t w~s mede for peri, salon to construct a
two-story building ~cus~ng a resident(~i one-family u~t ove~ a Ballet ~tudio.
g~rector of Plan~ng Warren submitted a plot pi~n %oti~g ~he io¢:~tion of the
proposed structure declaring that the c:x[sting building w~l be moved, fie noted the
zoning in the ~rea ~d the land use. Accord[ng t:o the zoo:in9 ordinance, residential
use ~s prohib~zed ~n a ccmmerc!a~ zone; however, the new zo~r:g ordinance will allow
a professional and r'es]dential use in the same zone~ which will be recommended for
this area.
M,r. Warren then discuss, sad the proposed off~street pa:rk[ng for which the applicants
propose 1 sp~ce per' 600 square feet of floor area or a total of 6 spaces. This
type of use is considered '~drop~off" traffic whereby parents leave their children
at the stud'io and thenpick them up after their Je~sor~s~ ~ le ord~nance~ as presently
written, does not delineate any specific requirements for off-street parking as
relating to a dance studio. The staff did point out: to the applicants, however, that
should their' bdilding use ch~ge, their present parki~g m~y then beco~e ~dequate, and
that: they must reach th~s decision before proposi:~g anything fdrther on their back
4or.
Bi;rector' ~a~ren then noted the staff's conditions for appr¢2va1, fie added that the
staff is coqcer~ed w~t? the design of the structure - more: ~tte~tion should be given
~o the effect of th~.~ front of the bu[lding~ Some of the conditlo~s suggested will
be those required i~ the ~C-O" zone which is not yet in effect°
The CoFmis~.~o~: d~scussed the proposed parking spaces noting that two wiil be used
by the applio~nts them;elves leaving four spaces for the patrons. Fha~rma~ Stevenson
raised the questior~ as to what w]11 happen if the dar¢ce studio does not go over and
a~other studio - Arthur Murray's, for ]~ta~ce- shodld move in. Th~s would certainly
change the aspects of the parking layout.
fhJs being the time a~d place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mrs...:eanet:te F'~eknik, 522 i~erland Way, explained the operation of the dance studio
stating the classes are for children and young adults ~d will be one-hour classes.
Presently, they have three motor vehicles, o~e of which will be sold in the near
future. They are proposing 17 feet of lawn are~; this is to alt ow more parking
spaces if they should sell the place someday - the r~ew owner~ would be able to get
at least ~wa more space~ from this area. ~er classes consfst of lO students per young
adult cl,~ss - she ca~ actually handle 15 students, but th~s would be the maximum.
The studio is ope~: From 3 poF. to 7:30 p,m.
Mro Warrer~ then r~v~ewed the co~dJtions again the ~pplic~'~ts stated they had no
object ior:s ~
Mr. N~choias ~esker', 1318 4itltop Dr[ve, stated he drew up the pJa~s 'for the building
and that it wa:~ j;,;,st ~ preliminary sketch which ir~d~cat:ed I[vi~9 conditions over a
commercial front° T~,e building could be developed to the sat[sfactlon of the Planning
~taff a~ applicants.
Tr, ere be:~g co further comment, either for or ~ga]nst:, the hearing was declared closed.
Member Adams dec'lered h.6 could see more of a re,~dlrement for doubling the parking
area, and tk:,~t the applicants have plenty of room i~ the rear of their lot for this
purpose° Chairman Steve,-;sor~ felt the staff should do some research o~ this matter,
comp~rlng the stano~rd~ of parking as required ]n other cities for dance studios
of this type.
~irector Warren po~ted out that where the r'equ~rements for such parking were not
noted in the zorrmir:g ordinance, then the Comm~ssioo could determine it.
Chairman Stevenson suggested t:he Comm~ssio~ approve the 6 spaces as being minimum,
and if the staff finds out through their research that more spaces are needed, then
i( would be co3tinge~t on that.
Mr. Warren stated that the applicants hope to develop some residentlal un~ts on the
rear of thelr lot, sometime in the future and would rather not have this for parking
Mro Tadeusz P~ekn~k, 523 ~erland Way, declared that they are planning to buy thls
property with~ the next two days. The lot ~s 290~ x 50~ a~d someday they hope to
develop apartment units in the rear and would rather not fill ~t up w~th parking
spaces.
B~rector Warren ir~ldlcated that a:~F future development or change of operation of the
ballet studio could change the parking requirements.
V~ce-~ha~rma~ Stewart c~mented that alt of these lots have j~$t ~0~ of frontage,
a~d that the Commisslor~ could be ~mposlng a hardship Ol~ the applicaots ~f they
required more p~rk~r~g spaces ~t th~s t~me~. ~'he C~mmiss~o~ sho~d ~pprow~ th~s plan
a~qd the pa,~k~r~g ~ specified by the Flan~n~r:g Director ~fte,r re~e&rcr~ o~: that mat~er.
M5~C .uuyer-otewart) '~ar~ance request be approved subject to the following conditions:
The setback be increased to lO~ to comply with the praposed setback of the C-O zone.
2. A detailed landscaping plan be sebmitted for the front y.~ a~ea between the
sidewalk a~d building.
3. That en adequate method of roof dralnage be shown ~ de,a~l on later pla~s
cludi~ng possible drain pipes on front elev~atiOno
4. That a char~ge ~r+ the architectural features of the building be to something more
in keeping w]th the ~ew construction in the area.
5. Any ¢~9na placed on the property to be in keeping w~th the C~O zone requirements
(fi~sh, non-flashing, and 20 square foot maximum) ard approved by the Planning
staff°
6. Required parking to be as determined by the Planning ~]rector after investigation
with other cities as to required parking for dance st~d~os.
Further, fi~din9s be as follows:
1. f'hat there are practical differences and unnecessary hard~hips within the meaning
of Ordinance No. 398 as amended which would result ]n the strict compliance of
the provisions of s~id ordiqance. So stated as de!]~e~ted below.
2. Fhere are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to the property
hereir~ inzolved or the ~ntended use thereof that do ~ot apply generally to
property or class of uses ~n the same zone. Although zoned for commercial use,
this area ~s designated on the General Plan for my]tip,e-family res~dentlal use.
The new zoning ordinance, ir, preparation, ~Jll provide for a ccr~birat[on of
uses as requested 'in th[s applicrtlon. The zo~e clesa~f~cation contemplated
will ultimately be recommended For app][cat[on to th[s pr,ape';'ty.
3. Grant~r~g this variance ia recessary for the preservation of the substantial
property right of the applicant. Without thi[s variance, the applicant fs deprived
of a use found o~ the majority of properties [n this area and ~s proposed on the
Genera'l Plan.
4. Gra~t:]~g t~ v~r[~r~ce w~lJ ~ot be materially detrimental to the public welfare
or !r~ju~iou~ ro the property ~mproveme~ts ~n the zone or district in which said
p~'opert¥ lis toca~ed, since~ marly properties are de~eloped ii~ a similar manner as
proposed ~y the app~ica~L
PJ~LiC FiEAR~S: ~equest by ~ohr Corporet[o~ for Approval of Antenr:a Division Office
~r~d Park~n~ Lot i~ ~T~ Zone
Director' of ?tariffing Warre~ explained t?at th~s m~tter requi~es s p~blic hearing
before any use ~s approved for t~e T[de]andso ~ this c~se~ ~he applicants are
proposing two uses: a~ emp]oyee parking ~ot on the southwe~sL co~er of '~G" Street
a~d lldelands Avertue~ and a ~ew ~i)d~ng to ho~e its ante~a ~ivls~o~ offices
which w]11 be iocated on the east side of T~deiands AYeque ~cou~n of "G" Street.
Mr. Warrer~ sa~d the staff would recommend approval of bo[h these uses, since it
meets al~ t~e c~it~a specified )n the ord~nance~ de the~ ~ubm~itted a plot plan
~ot~g the loc~tio~ of each use~
The appi~ca~ts h~ve ~how~ ~:n are~ for future ~endor parking to th~ north of their
ahtenna off~ce - t~e employee~ would be u~ing the Roar employee ]o~ -. however, on
a te~porart b~s~ t~e~ w~ll be using a port~o~ of Tidel~r~ds Aver~ue itself for their
customer parki~g~ Si~ce Tide~a:ds Avenue is ~o~ yet: dedic~ted~ nor that portion
improwd, the staff has ~o object,on, but would l~k~ t~ see ~cme sort of agreement
m~de between Rohr ~nd the C~ty a~ter the ~de~a~d~ Aver~ue ~ improved that would
a~sur~ that parklmg wou~d be ultimately provided o~ t~e property, a~d that there
would be no oost~cle to overcome in the future ~n getting the~ vehic(e~ off the
street~
This be~g the t~me and p~ace as advertised~ the public hea~ing was opened~
Mtn M~tch Foteff, Attorney, representing Rohr Co~porat~on, ::oted the co:struction
a~d size of the proposed building - 10~OO0 squ~re ~eet metal r~nforced building.
Pla~s cai~ for a d~corative~ maao~ry block screen to develop ~t~ a[tractlveness -
the bui~dir~g w~l~ :e used for the administrative offices of the a~te~a divisiom
At present, Tidelands Ave~ue is not developed on the east po~tion~ a~d it is
proposed to u~e this area outli~ed or~ the plot plan for temporary parking~
Mr. Koteff a~s~red the ~m~ssion that Rohr would e~ter ~:~to .~n arrangement wi~
the City to devel~p a permanent parking ~pace ~o~th o~: thi~ bu~ld~ng~
D~rector Wa~re~ ir~dicated the agreement co~ld be drawn up at t~e time the street
~s dedicated°
Mr~ w~!~am ~rs~t~:r~, Pr~:~cipa] E~gi~eer~ suggested the following: (I) that the
C~ty h.~ve thi~ ~g~ement to remove the paving i~ the rupture a~ such time as the
¢~ty may r~que~ it~ Tn~s would be whe~ the ~ort D~trict ~mproved the roadway,
aod they would have to remove this paving, and at that t~me~ the City would want
Rohr to construct any equlv~]ent pa~king facility o~ s~te~ (2) Another alterna-
tive would be to construct the paving to ~t~ fu~l structur~] section at least in
the roadway port~o~, so that ~t wouldn't have to be removed~, and ~he~ upon the Cityls
request, they wo~d st~ll have to build the on-s~te porti~ oF the parking.
M~. ~otef~ commented o~ the large area marked on the plot plan which ~iil be
dedicated as T~dela~ds Avenue - he said they don~t feel it wouid be necessary for
the type of parking t~ey would ~eed for th~s partlcul~ building to have an
-7-
equivalent area pat ]n, or set aside as parking for the particular use of th~s building.
V~ce-Ch~rman S~ewart expla~ne~ that what was meant was th~,t ~f the building was -I~
maintained with its present use and T~delands Avenue were ~nproved, they would then
be expecte5 to provide adequate parking on-s~te. Mr. Ko~eff stated they would agree
to tn[So ¥~ce~Cha~rman Stewart suggested the condition s~ata'~elther/orTM and that
gohr could chose w~ichever is more advantageous°
C~:y Attorney L~nd~er9 stated that if al~ goes well~ Tidelands will be dedicated by
the Por[ District o~ the 28th of th~s month, and the City would be accepting ~t on
the same day. tn that case~ the problem of required ~mprovemenss comes up, depending
upon the va~ue of the building that Rohr contemplates; ~ls;, an agreement would have
to be made as to de'err61 of improvements under some arrangement with the Engineering
Department. According to the ordinance, if the structure ~ntended for this site ~s
valued at more than $5000, the applicant would be required to put in the complete
improvements of the dedicated street. At the present t~me~ there is no demand for
the comptetlon of Tidelands Avenue - this ]$ an aspect th,~t might have to come back
to the CommJs$~o~ ]m terms of deferring these improvement~ for whatever time ~s
deemed advlsable. Director Warren stated a decision could be reached on this before
]t goes to CounC]~o The Commission could approve the use with these alternatives.
Principal Engineer Harshman noted that if the dedication do~occur prior to these
arrangements, tha~ the remainder could be handled with an e~:cro~chment permit°
C~ty Attorney Lindber9 stated that an encroachment permit w~u]d certainly be ~ssued
for the parking - h~s other concern was the matter of deferring the improvements.
Mr. Koteff stated they are making arrangements with the Port D~strlct to occupy that '"~
area (approximately 5 acres) for the parking lot under a short term le~se arrange-
ment or possibly a use and occupancy perm~t~ The improvements contemplated for this
area are either a gravel covering, or decomposed gran~te~ or o~ surfacing, The
reason for th~s ~s that thls particular area is under the d~sputed area that is
subject to l~tlgat~on as a result of a claimant who c~aims an interest ~n this
particular portion of the T~dela~ds area. For th!s reason, the Port District does
not want to g~ve Rohr go,potation a long-term lease under th~s situation - they
prefer that the ~rea r:ot be ~mproved to the degree thgt it would be with a long-
term lease.
Mr. Warren declared a temporary paving could be approved subje~:t to the specifica-
tions of the COty Engineer. It is a determina~io~ thee the Council would also
have to make. Mr~ Koteff added that if th~s llt~gation is settled in the near
future, the PoFt D~strict may feel that this area ~s more suitable for ~ndustrial
or commercial use than that of a parking area~
Member Adams asked whose responsibility it would be to improve the street in this
case. City Attorney Lindberg indicated that ~n cons~derlng the problem further, it
appears that it has been established that the Port D~strlct has funds for the
improvement; that probably the u~ual requirement for owner inst~llation of im-
provements would not apply ~n this case°
Member Adams suggested th~s part of :he action ~e left for a future time to allow
for a careful work~ng out of whatever agreement ~s needed and the street dedlca-
t~on. ~
V~ce-C~alr~arl Stewart suggested the Comm~sslo~ ~pprove the laqd use a~d defer the
quest;o~ of the type of improvements that w~ll
front oF th~
Mr~ ~ot~f ta~d he is co":cerned about a r~qu~rement whereby they wou~d have to improve
it w~th =;oma exper::.['ve ]mprovements and then w[thln a m~tse:r of less than a year',
be requi~ed Eo v,~c~te ~t: ~s a result of th~s Jaw,su~t or the Po~'t
to develop ~t for ~e other use.
Mr. :~-;mshr~sq suggested tPis be left to the dlscret~on of the C~ty E~9~eer for
stab:doral ard ~empor'ary paving designed to last two to f~ve years, rather than try
to specify ~t here tonight.
There being no further count, e~ther for or agair, st, the hearing was declared
closed.
The Commission c~cdyred that there are no c~pi~catlons involved that would prevent
them from approv~n9 the request.
MSUC: (Stewart-Cuyer') Reco~d to C~ty Council the approval of the requested uses
finding them consistent w~th the requirement of the "Tn zone. The Comm~ssionls
rec~ndat~on is made with the following cor, d~t~ons:
I. ~F:at verdof p~rk~ng be allowe~ in the r[ghz-oF-way
accords~ce w~th their plot plan, subject to an ¢,gree.~eLqt between Ruhr Corpora-
tio~ ~nd the City of 6h~la Vista, assuring that such parking will be moved
o~-s~te when ~delar, ds Avarice is ~mproved.
2~ That temporary paving Fun both the proposed parking lot a~d off,ce venaor parking
be a'l~ed; the pay ng spec[flcat~on subjec~ to the approval of the C~ty
E~g[~eer~
Fur t. her, fi~:d~gs be a follow~:
Such use:; w~tl be cons~sten:t with the character a*~d developme, nt of the C~ty
~n this area. T'~e propos,;ed ~se'¢, are me~ely a~ expa~slon of uses already
¢9cated ~ the area.
2. Such u::;e w~[l r;)t v;ot~te :he ~rust purposes for which Chula ~,:'~sta holds the
t~delar~ds gf*~t from the State o~ Cal[forr~a. ~'he pr:~F.%~e~d dses are those
which a~'e ~ormaily conducted in i~du:,trlal areas- the subject property carries
a~ ~dustri~l des~gnat~o~ o~ the Se~er¢l
3~ Sc~h ,;;e ~it~ -.ut result i~ ar; u~reasorable depr~v-.t:[o:~ of the publ~c"s right
to the enjoyment of sma]~ boat harbors, marinas, aqua;tic playgrounds, and
similar ~ecreationa~ facilities upon or about the s~id t~delands or submerged
lands~ T'he Gerer ] Plan des[g~:~tes th~s area ars [nd~;;~-.trial and reserves !and
[o the south for recreation purpos6s~
4. Such u~e w~i~ r~ot co~;t[tute a nuisance. A~ off~ce b~itd[Lqg [~ an industr~al
co~plex would not corlstitu[e a ~ulsance wh~le the parki,q9 lot would help
allev~at[q9 the parking shortage ~n the Ruhr ~rdu:str[~:.l c~p]ex.
-9-
Request for Wai~er of Public improvements - De Lucia - 30th 3treet and Edgemere Drive
Director' of Planning Warren explained that at the l~st meeting, the Commission ~-~
approved the co~structJo~ of a dwelllng on th~s property. ~ow the applicant has
submitted a request for deferraI of sidewalk improvements. The staff concurs wltn
the recommerdatJon of the Er~gineer[ng Department that the sidewalk requ[rements be
deferred for the following reasons:
~a side~alk ~w exists on the south side of 3Otb Street between Edgemere Avenue
a~d H~gh]~r~d Average. Less than half of such distance ~s withi~ the City of
Chula
2. [he ~ubject parcel represents only 10 % of the total fro~ge within the block.
3o ~t ~ ~t ~ow po~s]ble to determine the precise locatio~ of the proposed freeway-
flood c~rot complex, or the effect which such complex will have upon the
subject property°
~n~tallat~on of ~he subject ~dewalk is considered 'extyemety ~mpract~cal" because
of t:~e aforementioned lack of total jur~sd~ct~o~ and the u~certa~nty concerning
the future m~jor cor:~t~uction in the area°
M~ ($tewart~u~er) Approv~l of the deferral of slidewaJK improveme~ts sub3ect to
the posti~g of a bor~d, or l[en in the arm~t of $400. to ~nsure future [mproveme~$o
Pd~L~C ~EAR~NG - Proposed Amendment to "T' Zone
Director of Ftarm~ng Warren explained the reason for the proposed amendment° These
changes were formulated in order to eliminate the necessity for public hearJng~ at
bot~ the Comm~sa~om and Cou~c]f levels on uses proposed for the '~i"~ zone° lhe staff
feels that the~e public hearings are not necessary s~nce the new ordinance would
reta~m the provisions wm~ch require Commission arid Co~qcll review and approval of
any pr~po$ed ~e~ T~e ~earings are tlme=consuming s~nce each o~e must be first
advertised ~$ prescribed by the ordinance,
This being t~e t~me and place as advertised, the public hearing was ope~edo
YFere be~g no commer~t~ either for or aga]mst, the hearing wa~ declared closed~
The C~mi~sJon stated they had no objection to the pcoposed amendment since i[
would "streamline" the ordinance°
MS~C (Adam~.-Suye~) Resolution of the C~t:y Ple~g ~:omm~ssion Recommending
RESOLUTION ND° 406 to t~e City Council the Ame~d~nt of Sections 33.81 and
33°82 of t~e Chula Vista Code, and Repealing Sectiom
33~82, Re~atJr~g to "T~ T~de~a!~ds Zone Regulations
F[ndlngs be as follows:
Io All other zone~ in the ordJnamce list allowed use~ which are not subjec~ to
public hearing, except ~n certain ~nstances~
2o The ame~d~'~t wilt allow proper control of uses p~"opo~ed for the T~dela',ds~
but w~ll:J eiim]r/ate a t]me-consum~ng and unnecess-~ry p~ocedure~
P;BL~C ~¢EA~N8 - Prop~sed ~me~dme~t to garage req~]remer~t~ ]~ ~-~ zones
D]?'ector of P]~r~q],'~g War~*e~ ~t~te~ the Co~'~o,~ h~es he~d worth, shop se~s~o~,$ to
d~scu.~ the provJs~o~ presently requlr]~g the ~-ca~ gcc,rage co~'ta[~[r~g 400 ~qu~re
~eet. ~e C~ty Attorr, ey h~s presented an opi~o~ or t:qe gar~9~ requ~re~t as
writ:te~, 8~d ~'~ ~s his open,on that ~t ~s ir~f~ex~ble 81nd w~ no e'~ternat~ve,
m~ght '~ot be comp'~eteJy ]ust~flbte. What ~s now rec~m~ded ~ e ch~¢ge Jr, the
ord]nsqce t:het ~ouJd still reqclre ~he 2-car garage with ]r~t~a~ construction,
pr~ari Jy directed toward the mas5 ~'ract developments; however, ~t would allow
a resident to cortvert his existing garage ~ &cco~da*:c6 with Bu~d~n9 Code
restrictio~ with the provisioa that he provide either ~;)ther garage or e carport
with a ce~ta]r; ~moc:nt of enclosed storage~
C~ty At~orrey L[~dberg stated that, ac written, the m~n~mu~ storage t:ha~ would be
required for a carport would be no tess tha~ 6" high with r,o ether d?mensio~ less
~h~n ~ F.e added that the object~ve is to provide off-street p¢~rking - t~o
quest]o~ that this is necessary and a completely proper u'.e of the police power.
Secondly, this off-street: parking should be provided ~n e m~,~,~er :~o as to avoid
the appearance of a parking lot which the garage or carport would do in a resi-
dential area. However, [o li~t the property ow~e~' to ¢ 2-.c8r garage ~;th ~o
alterr~ative seems to be d~ffJc~it to justify e~n~ at, courages people to violate
the Building Code [~ the conversion of garages~ There h~ve bee~ marW instances
where co~vers~on has beer~ done without proper ~spec[8o~ ~nd this coatd create
definite hazards to the health a~d safety of the per)pie ~;~ the home as ~el] 8s
the surrounding area.
~ amending the ordinance, it is felt that a~y co~vers~o~ process should retain the
design of the home, and the additior~ of the carport ~]:so be ]~ keep][~g with the
des~ga of the ho~e aird subject to the approval o¢ the departme,,;t~
Th~¢ be~%~g t~;e t~me ~*~d place as advertised, the pubi~c he~r~g was ope,aed.
Hr. Frank E. ~'erre~¢~, 3715 Putter Drive, Bor~?t:a, c]ar~fy~rq9 the point, stated
that i~ bui~d~ng a r]ew home, a 2-c8r g~r~ge ~usL be constructed; however~ ]n
converting, then a 2-car (:¢rpo~'t with p~oper storage could be co.~structed. As
a buiider, he stated, be felt the Comm[s~;~on could be creati~:g a ~ot: of u~or-
thodox houses, especially i'~ the i~-pflced homes~ ~,~e de(lured it ~ouJd be more
edva~t~ge:ous a~d a better des]g~ if the peopie were 8]](~ed to ~r~;orpo'rate the
2-car c~,'por~ at the t~ they were de~¢[gr~ing the bui]lding.
C~ty Attorney L]~dberg stated the Corem;salon could coas[der a variance a~ the
~]me of construct~o~ if they felt that the type of design of t~e carport
suggested in ~ew co~struc[~o~ ~ouid meet; the sta~(ccrds of the ordinance. Vice-
Chs[rmar~ Stewart remarked that these people wou~d h¢ve LO prove ~ hardship, and
~hat bas]c~i~y, he feels everyone should be required [o hsve cn at, closed gar'age.
Hr. Ferreira declared that he knew of m;~ny h~gh~pr~ced ho~s that h~ve carports
a~d th~s ha:-~ proved an 6ssa[ to the home~ fie qa(3t~o~ed t:he poss~bll~ty of a
developer coming ~ w~th ~ pl~ for a home whe~'(.by he wou~d be'ye 8 g~rage which
could im,~ed~a[e~y be converted and a carport built, shirr, b/ 'beetlng" the ordinance.
Cirector Warre~ declared that these people would have to apply for ~ variance in
order to do this° ~e added that this proposed ordinance was not meant to encourage
carport$~ but r~ther, it was felt that there should be situations whereby a carI
port could be allowed.
Member Ad~z~s commented that ~ince the ordinance prohibiting carports went into
effect, o~ly o~-~e o~ two reqcests have come before the Comm~s[o;~ for permission to
construct a ca~port a~d these were denied. City Attorney LJ~dberg declared that
th[s proposed ordinance would give the City a firmer ho~d o~ those persons that do
convert t~e~r g~r~ges, should they ever have to be brough~ i~to court°
There being no further comment~ e[ther for or against, the hearing was declared
clohedo
C~i~ma~ Steven~o~ commented t~at th~s w~s an ~mportant move ~d the Comm~s$io;ners
who are absent to,night may have some thoughts on ~t. ~e would like to see thls
matter co-~t~n~ed to g~ve these other members a ct:ante to voice their opinions on
¥ice=Cha]rman Stewart stated that the Commissioners pre~e~t: tonight represent the
m6jor~ty~ ~nd that the matter has received at~ the atte~tio~ it would receive if
the other three were present.
D~rector Warren remarked that this is a controversia~ subject and t:h~t in such
case:s, the Council usually weighs heavily the vote of the Commission.
Mr. Ferreira commented on the "l]berizing" of the ordinance and questioned whether
a property o~ner could construct two carports - one on each side of his home.
City Attorney L[ndberg stated his bu[Idlng plans would first h~ve to be approved
by the Commission, and in most cases, a property owner would not have the room for
this dual construction.
MS [Stewart-Ad~ms) Reco~m~end to the City Co~nc~t the adopt:~o~ of a resolution to
~mend the City Code re~ating to the requirements for two-car garages ~n the R-I
ZOneS,
The motion failed to c~rry by the following vote,
AYES: Members Stewart, Adams
NOES: C~a]rmsn S~evenson and Member Guyer (They preferred to conti~ue the matter
so the other Members would be present).
A~SE~T: Memoers Smith, Johnson, and Vaden
MS,lC (~dyer-Steve:nson) Matter be continued to the first: meeting in July.
Request for Exten~io~ of lime - Conditional Use Permit for Methodist Church - East i~aples Street
Director of Pl~nnlng Warren referred to the letter received from a member of the
church requesting a two-year extension of their co ndlt[o~t u:se permit approved
on .June i3, 196~. On June 15, 1964, the Commission ~pproved a two-year extension
or~ the permit, ~nd nDw they are again asking for another two-.year extension. The
staff would recommend that this be approved. ~'~
MSUC (~3uyer-f~ewart) Recommend approval of a two=year exteqs~on on the conditionaJ
use permit; such permit to exp0re on June 15~ !968.
Reschedul~n~ First Regular Meeting in July
Director of Planning Warren explained that the first regular meeting in July falls
on a holiday - July 4. The staff would recommend that this be cancelled and the
meeting be held on Wednesday, July 6.
MSgC (Guyer-Stewart) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Cancelling
RESOLUTION NO. 407 the Meeting of July 4, 1966 and Rescheduling it for
July 6, 1966
P PY
Report of Findings - Poutous Development and Saratoga Develo ment Com en - Variance
to Reduce Lot ~)zes in the Les Chateaux Subdivision
Director Warren stated an appeal has been received from Princess Park Estates, Inc.,
of the variance granted Poutous and Saratoga 9evelopment Company for the reduction
of lot sizes In the Les Chateaux Subdivision.
The report of findings was then read.
MSJC (Stewart-Guyer) Approval of report of findings and that they be forwarded to the
City Council.
First Free Will Baptist Church - Approval of Sign
Mr. Edward Coil)er, Member of the Board of Trustees of the Church, asked for approval
of a sign for their church at 64q '~G" Street, a sketch of which was submitted to the
Planning staff.
Mr. Warren noted that the slgn Is in conformance to the ordinance as to dimension
and size, and will be unl)ghted. However, because it Is an angle-sign (double), the
staff felt the Comm)sslon would want to see this. Director Warren then showed the
Commission a sketch of the sign, Indicating that )t totals 24 square feet.
MS~C (Stewart-Guyer) Approval of sign as per plot plan.
A~JOURNME~T
/
MSdC {Adams-Guyer) Meeting adjourn slne die,
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary