Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1965/08/02 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA August 2, 1965 The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on the above date in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, with the following members present: Stevenson, Comstock, Johnson, Vaden, Adams, and Guyer. Absent: Member Stewart. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Assistant Planner Terrell, and City Engineer Cole. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Vaden-Guyer) Approval of Minutes of July 19, 1965, as mailed. (Cont'd) Request for Two Signs at Canyon Club Cafe - Telegraph Canyon Road and "L" Street - "D" Zone A letter was read in which the applicant requested permission to erect two signs - one neon beer sign, 3'x3', which would be placed one-half foot inside the window, and the other a soft-drink sign with the word "Food" which will be placed on the east end of the building. Director of Planning Warren suggested the Commission ask the applicant whether these signs would replace any of the signs they now have, or whether it will be in addition to them. Mr. Fiebig, Manager of the Cafe, declared the sign presently on the roof is no longer visible to people passing by because of the construction of the two service stations in the area which now block the view of the Cafe. He added the proposed sign for the window would be 14"x27", and the one proposed for the east end of the building would replace the one there now. Member Johnson remarked that the entire shopping center has been a problem, as far as signs go, and with the coming of the freeway near this area, it will become a landmark. He added he is not in favor of granting this request. Member Adams commented that this shopping center is in a residential area and placed there purposely for the convenience of the adjacent residential area; they should not be dependent upon transient vehicles. He added he felt the signs on the front of the building were adequate and the proposed signs would not be compatible with the residential area. MSUC (Guyer-Adams) Request for additional signs be denied based on the following: 1. The additional signs would not be compatible with the adjacent residential area and would serve no purpose beyond that already erected on the building. 2. That the sign advertising "Beer" on the east end of your building be removed at once and that no other signs be placed on the building or in the windows without Commission approval. Request for Interpretation re Conditional Use Permit Granted Kromschroeder & Associates Director of Planning Warren stated that the original application included the entire parcel, but that because of the conflict of the proposed freeway, the applicants chose to construct their development on the rear portion of the lot. Since they have had the option to purchase the front portion, they now wish to do so, and move the development to this northerly site. This procedure has been approved by the City Attorney, and the staff was asked to present it to the Commission for their consideration. Member Johnson questioned whether 805 was subject to change at this point. Director Warren declared that although the specific alignment was not tied down, he was assured by the representative of the State Highway Division, that it would not go any further to the west. Mr. Warren then submitted the new plot plan, and in- dicated the area for access which will be a one-half street, 27 feet in width, which is proposed as a dedicated street. Director Warren then comm~nted on several recom- mendations the staff would suggest be imposed, and added that they have no objections to changing the site. Chairmen Stevenson asked if the people in the area were notified. Mr. Warren stated those in the City were, but not those residing in the County. Member Comstock felt the Commission would be setting a dangerous precedent if this was approved; he would like to see a public hearing held on this. Member Johnson disagreed remarking that the same people who were present at the public hearing would be the same ones to return for the next hearing; he saw no harm in going ahead with it. Member Adams declared the Commission should act on it, and that it would not be setting a precedent as the conditions were unique. Lane F. Cole, City Engineer, commented that if the site is approved, the Engineering Division should be assured the proper right-of-way will be given. MSi!C (Guyer-Johnson) Approval of change of site to northerly portion of the property with the condition that sufficient right-of-way be given, as requested by the City Engineer. Member Comstock voted IIno,'l REZONINGS - PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Addition of Supplemental I'DII Zone to Nei~hbor- hood Shopping Center Sites: R. ienstra Street and Hilltop Drive; Telegraph Canyon Road and Halecrest Drive and Southwes~.ern College Estates Director of Planning Warren stated this was Commission initiated at the request of the staff. It has been the custom in the past year or so for the Commission and the Council to attach the "D" zone to shopping centers that are in residential areas, in order to assure compatibility. These particular sites are, as yet, undeveloped and to date, a conditional use permit has been approved for a service station at the College site, but no construction has taken place. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared opened. Mr. David Kelton, one of the owners of the Southwestern College Estates, 5109 Waring Road, San Diego, asked if this particular supplemental zone was patterned after that of any other City and whether any other commercial properties in the City have been developed under this zone. Director Warren answered that the zone was patterned after that of Monterey, and there have been at least two shopping center sites in the City developed under the liDII zone. Mr. Kelton stated that they are strenuously opposed to the imposition of the "D" zone being placed on their property. He felt the Commission was being arbitrary in selecting specific sites for this zone, and leaving other similarly zoned sites in the City without this zone. They are especially opposed to the requirement that the signs be 50 square feet maximum; that a super market would require a much larger sign. He added that the Commission should make it plain to all new developers that this particular supplemental "DI' zone might be imposed on their property. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Director Warren commented that when looking at the zoning map in the Planning office, you can find very few shopping centers that ~an be termed neighborhood shopping centers; you cannot logically state that Broadway and Third Avenue could be thusly termed; therefore, few have the supplemental "D" zone attached. Three others do have the ~ID" zone attached. Member Vaden commented that he felt the "D" zone is one of the best and most effective ways to create attractive neighborhood centers and that a reputable builder has nothing to fear. MSUC (Adams-Vaden) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to RESOLUTION NO. 366 the City Council Rezonlng for Property Located at the Following Locations: (1) Southeast Corner Otay Lakes Road and Gotham Street; (2) Southeast Corner of Hilltop Drive and Rienstra Street; (3) Northeast Corner of Halecrest Drive and Telegraph Canyon Road Findings are as follows: 1. The supplemental "D" zone offers the Commission an opportunity to review proposed plans for development. 2. Architectural control on these sites will help to assure resultant development more compatible with the residential areas. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING: DesLaurier-Sigurdson - 580 Hilltop Drive - Addition to St. Mark's Lutheran Church The application was read in which a request was made for permission to construct an additional building at 580 Hilltop Drive which will be used for religious services and have a seating capacity of approximately 490, and a vertical element approxi- mately 85 feet in height. Director of Planning submitted a plot plan, noting the location and adjacent land use stating that the staff wishes to compliment the Church for choosing an adequate site. He explained the plot plan and noted the parking layout with four spaces proposed in the setback, which in this case is 30 feet on Hilltop and "l" Street. The ordinance prohibits offstreet parking within the setback; the applicant would have to get a variance if he proposes to do this. The banks will be landscaped to some- what screen the parking from the street. Director Warren asked that;the Commission base their approva! on the condition that a detailed plot plan be submitted to the Commission for approval at a later date. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Si§urdson, one of the applicants, stated he is the architect on this development, and explained another parking layout with 45© parking which provides 93 spaces -3- observing the setback requirements. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Comstock stated he felt 30 feet was an excessive setback, and that the original parking layout shown with the four spaces in the setback was a good plan, and with landscaping, etc., he would prefer considering this plan. Member Adams declared he was not partial to any one of the parking plans; that they should be studied and worked out to get the best plan. Since only four spaces are in the setback area, he felt a suitable plan could be worked out still maintaining the setback area. Mr. Warren commented that on a 2½ acre site, the applicants should have no trouble observing a 30 foot setback which should be considered minimum for large churches. Chairman Stevenson suggested it be continued to the next meeting so that the parking plan could be worked out. Member Comstock indicated the Commission should give approval of the use permit with the exception of the parking plan. Chairman Stevenson asked that the staff check into the storm drainage since there was a problem at Whitney and Hilltop right now. MSUC (Comstock-Johnson) Approval of conditional use permit subject to the following conditions: 1. The parking layout to be worked out with the staff and the applicants and presented to the Commission at the next meeting, August 16, 1965. 2. The concept of grading the parking area shall be further delineated. A maximum of a 2:1 slope should result between tiers of parking to enable proper planting. 3. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for staff or Commission approval showing number, size and species of all plants and the method of watering. Since apparently this construction will complete development of the entire site, all landscaping shall be completed at the time of final building inspection. 4. A six foot (6~) high solid fence or wall shall be constructed along the north and west property lines. The wall should be of masonry construction, or if wood is to be used, masonry pillars should be placed every twenty-five feet (25'). With written approval of adjacent owners, this requirement may be waived. 5. It is recommended that some form of wall 3½ feet high be built, or hedge be planted along the easterly edge of the parking area between access drives. 6. The detailed architectural plans shall be submitted tO the Planning Commission at a later date for approval. Findings are as follows: 1. Granting this conditional use permit will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, as delineated in the ordinance. Although this addition may possibly increase attendance in the future, the character of traffic should not measurably change. The relation of this church site to a major and collector street should eliminate any hazard occasioned by unusual volume of traffic. -4- 2. The characteristics of the use proposed are reasonably compatible with the types of use permitted in the surrounding areas, since the property is now used for church services and since the addition will in no way be changing the use of the property. VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING: Norvan and Veronica Miller - 194 "H" Street - Request to Operate D~.¥ Nursery in R-1 Zone The application was read in which a request was made for permission to continue operation of the Day Nursery School under the same provisions as present owners have be~n operating. Th~ request was for a 5 year period of time. it was noted that the application was signed by 13 property owners favoring the request. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, zoning, and adjacent land use. In 1952, a variance was granted to use this home for a Day Nursery. This variance has been extended from t~me to time and will presently expire in 1968, or if the home is sold as contemplated. The applicant is a buyer of the property, and will have to be licensed by the State and subject to their restrictions. The present owner has been operating this Nursery School for 13 years with no apparent problems; no complaints have been received from any of the adjacent property owners. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mrs. Veronica Miller, the applicant, stated she had no further comments to make. She will have to be licensed by the State and this is contingent upon approval of the variance. She has already had her interview with the Department of Welfare in Los Angeles. Chairman Stevenson discussed the increasing traffic on the corner of "H" and Second Avenue and wondered whether there would be any conceivable way to provide parking spaces on the property for mothers to pick up their children. Director Warren commented that the Commission could impose any conditions on this variance they think are necessary and reasonable. Parking and curb cuts would be subject to Engineering Division approval. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Guyer discussed the length of time requested for the variance and commented that in the past, the Commission has always granted the variance for one year and then extended it for longer periods of time, if no problems occurred. Chairman Stevenson agreed a shorter period of time, than requested, should be granted and also state, "until the home is sold, whichever comes first." Member Adams declared the facility has been very well conducted in the past years and one reason for this was the fact that the owners had to come in from year to year to renew their variance. He felt this variance should be granted for a one- year period to start with, and then more. Chairman Stevenson declared the conditions of the original variance should apply limiting the children to 20, etc. Director Warren pointed out that in addition to the conditions imposed by the Commission, the applicant would also be subject to the restrictions of the state. MSUC (Vaden-Comstock) Approval of variance subject to the following conditions: 1. Operation of a Day Nursery School, limited to the care of no more than 20 children. 2. The residential character and appearance of the single-family dwelling not be changed. 3. Advertising sign not to exceed 4 sq.ft, and shall be attached to the dwelling. 4. Variance approved for a 3-year period of time or until the home is sold, whichever comes first. Findings be as follows: 1. There are practical differences and unnecessary hardships within the meaning of Ordinance No. 398 as amended which would result in the strict compliance of the provisions of sa~d ordinance . 2. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to the property herein involved or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to property or class of uses in the same zone. Although the property involved is not significantly different than those lying adjacent, it is somewhat larger and is completely developed with recreational facilities for a large number of pre-school age children. The lot lies directly across the street from an area designated on the General Plan for high-density residential development - the zone in which a Day Nursery can be allowed. 3. Granting this variance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial property r~ght of the applicant. Unless the variance is granted, the new owners will be unable to utilize the property in the m~anner in which it has been used for tl~e past 13 years. Extensive redevelopment of the property would be necessary for normal single-family use. 4. Granting this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property improvements in the zone or district in which said property is located, since this use has existed for 13 years with no apparent problems of incompatibility. PUBLIC HEARING: F. Ferreira & Tri-County Construction Company - Bonita Cove Subdivision - Request for Off-Site Signs The application.was read in which a request was made for permission to erect the following offsite signs: one tract sign (40 sq.ft.) atthe intersection of Bonita Road and Sandalwood Drive, and five small signs (8 sq.ft.) along the Bonita Road frontage, east of Sandalwood Drive. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the property and the specific location of the proposed signs. The total area of the proposed signs will not exceed 150 square feet which would normally be allowed on-site. Additional directional signs to his property that the applicant will be requesting will be taken care of by a conditional use permit. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. -6- Mr. Frank Ferreira, the applicant, stated the existing sign on the premises which measures 480 square feet will be removed since it is of no more use to them. The houses under construction obscure the sign. Mr. Ferreira then described the design of the signs stating they will be compatible to the development. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams felt the request was valid and that Mr. Ferreira's reason for removing his large 480 sq.ft, sign would be termed as an exceptional circumstance. There are now numerous houses between this large sign and the road, and since this sign is no longer visible, it is no long er needed. Mr. Adams declared, however, that it would be setting a bad precedent to allow signs all along the road; one sign should be granted and it should be limited to 50 square feet. The type and color of the signs were discussed. Mr. Ferreira stated the background would be dark green with light green lettering, and will be of such quality that people will associate them with the development. He will be having a minimum amount of signs. Member Guyer questioned the placement of signs. Mr. Ferreira discussed the long ditch between the road and the subdivision and said the signs would be about 6 feet south of that which should make it approximately 18 feet beyond the street. Member Comstock questioned the time limit. Mr. Ferreira requested a period of at least one year. Chairman Stevenson suggested the addition of "or until so many homes are sold, etc." MSC (Comstock-Guyer) Approval of variance subject to the following conditions: 1. The large sign, measuring approximately 480 sq.fto,presently on the premises, to be removed. 2. Approval of variance for a period of one year or until the last home is sold or occupied~ Findings be as follows: 1. There are practical differences and unnecessary hardships within the meaning of the ordinance which would result in the strict compliance of the provisions of said ordinance. 2. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to the property herein involved or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to property or class of uses in the same zone. Due to the location of the property, the sub- division is not easily identified from Bonita Road and does not have the exposure to the public. 3. Granting this variance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial property right of the applicant. Owner will use the signs to direct prospective buyers to this property to aid in the sale of the development; without this variance, he would be handicapped in the sale of the development. 4. Granting this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property improvements in the zone or district in which said property is located. Property to the east is zoned R-3-D; properties to the west -7- are secluded and buffered by the topography. No objections from adjacent property owners. The variance is for a temporary period of time. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Comstock, Guyer, Stevenson, and Vaden NOES: Members Adams and Johnson ABSENT: Member Stewart Request by Victor Wulff for Architectural Approval of Addition to Office at 4041 Bonita Road Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the property and the adjacent land use. The construction of the present building is of a "red- barn type" construction, and conforms to the ex~sting architecture of the building. At present, the parking is in front of the building and within the street right-of- way~ When Bonita Road is widened, the applicant would then have to place his parking at the rear of his building. Member Johnson noted that landscape plans were not submitted with the plot plan. Ttq-i-s-b~ing the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Victor Wulff, the applicant, stated he just purchased this property from the estate of Morris Allen. He stated he will revise his parking to the rear of the building when Bonita Road is widened and, at that time, completely landscape the front portion. He will have a 15 foot wide driveway on the west side of the building which will be adequate egress and ingress. Mr. Wulff added he has no objections to any of the comments and recommendations made by the Planning Director. Mr. Lane Cole, City Engineer, stated there is no schedule on when the road will be widened. At the present time, Bonita Road seems to be handling the Junior College traffic fairly well. MSUC (Johnson-Vaden) Approval of plans subject to the following conditions: 1. At the time that Bonita Road is widened, permanent improvements shall be in- stalled, and a new plot plan shall be submitted to the Commission showing: a. proper parking layout in the rear, b. landscape pla ns. 2. In the interim, the required parking spaces shall be marked in front. AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING: (Cont'd) Ordinance Establishing Architectural Review After explaining the background in preparation of this proposed ordinance, Director of Planning Warren indicated that this particular ordinance has been widely circu- lated and publicized, and a wor~hop was held on it by the Commission. This is a continued public hearing , and after the hearing, theCommission can either close it or continue it for further study and incorporation of any changes. This being the time and place as advertised, Chairman Stevenson reopened the hearing. -8- Speaking in opposition were: Ray Swanner, 5109 Waring Road, Past President of San Diego Contractor's Association, Ray Rainwater, representing Princess Park Estates, Frank Ferreira, 3715 Putter Drive, and Myron Dalseth, 114 Guava Avenue, and Claude Lane, contractor, Chula Vista. They stated as their objections: (Swarmer) Section 33.93, Powers and Duties of the Board - any developer coming into the City would have little control over bls development; too much power for the Board to reject plans, of which some of them would not have the qualifications to judge; Mr. Swanner spoke of a similar Board in Monterey County with which he has dealt, and commented on two plans which were rejected by the Board but which one plan won an award from "Better Homes & Gardens" and their other plan was duplicated by local builders. (Rainwater) Objection to the Powers and Duties feeling too much power is being bestowed on this Board - only one qualified person will be sitting on this Board, the architect, the other four members can be laymen; objection to review of set- backs as this is an already established thin~; inability of four out of five men on the Board to agree with one plan; the districts as will be formed by 60 % of property owners who own 40 % of the property in the area - not democratic process; there is enough adequate control now in Chula Vista - the sliding scale is more restrictive than many places in California. (Ferreira) Would lose annexations if this ordinance was adopted; one builder in the City already considering moving out of the City; speaking for the low-income families, they would not have a place to live if this ordinance went into effect as it only encourages higher-priced developments; should have some guide lines set up for this Board to go by. Chairman Stevenson assured Mr. Ferreira that a criteria would be set up to be used by the Board and available to all, and noted Section 33.94 in the proposed ordinance covering this. (Dalseth) The ordinance goes a long way beyond what it should; it would be trial and error for the builder bringing in his plans before the Board; have to think of costs and not just aesthetics; afraid of what the Board can do with this power and control placed upon it. Member Adams reminded Mr. Dalseth that he was Chair- man of the Mayor's Committee that originally recommended the sliding scale and this ordinance. Mr. Dalseth stated it was the recommendation of his Committee and not his personal recommendation. The development of Allied Gardens was discussed by Mr. Swanner and Mr. Rainwater who commented that at the time of building, it was considered to be a potential "slum" area because of the small homes they constrocted; however, today it has one of the highest market values in the County. Mr. Rainwater objected also to the "General Standards" clause and questioned who would be the one to decide whether "appropriate selection of materials and colors, etc.," were selected. He felt this was already adequately handled by the staff and the building inspectors. Mr. Victor Wulff, architect, 4041 Bonita Road, spoke in favor of the ordinance declaring that a set of standards should be set up for support or criticism; the Board should be governed by these guide lines, as it is very difficult to count on one person being totally acceptable to one kind of building. Mr. Wulff then spoke of the national problem whereby "our countryside has been at war with men ..... the mining of forests, control and development of agricultural lands for needed com- munities, etc."; how esthetic control is necessary to preserve what we now have. ~-~ There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was closed. -9- Chairman Stevenson suggested the staff and Commission be allowed to study these comments. Member Comstock suggested the following be deleted from the ordinance: page 4, subsection (b): "appropriate selection of materials and colors of materials." Also, the following sentence: "The function of the Board should be to create harr~my and uniformity and avoid monotony and drabness with the community." He added that not one speaking in opposition tonight gave any solution to the problem or constructive thoughts. He would like to see another workshop session held on it. Member Vaden ~ndicated he would like to see the "Comparative Standards" clause reviewed to emphasize the elimination of front elevations for repetition's sake - having the same style house every other structure. Mr. Warren expressed his appreciation for the interest shown and comments received, but indicated that the proposed ordinance would be ineffective without public support of those who allegedly desire the ordinance. Little of such support was voiced at the hearing. MSUC (Adams-Vaden) Public hearing be reopened and continued until the first meeting in September. AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance Requiring Under- ~'~roundln~ of Public Utility Facilities Director of Planning Warren briefly explained the proposed ordinance which had been discussed at the last Commission workshop. He discussed this draft with repre- sentatives of the utility companies and they suggested a few changes in wording~some of which were made by the staff. In general, the utility companies approve the draft. Mr. Warren discussed sub- section (f) "television and radio reception should be provided by concealed antennas, etc.," and noted the word was "should" and not "shall" as, he explained, this was not intended to drum up business for any particular cable company and would not require the use of a cable service. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Ray Rainwater, representing Princess Park Estates, Inc., stated that for various reasons, they would llke to have the choice as to whether to build underground or above-ground left to the developers; sometimes this could be for economic reasons. Mr. Rainwater declared they object to the clause on "Purpose and Intent" and questioned who would be the one to deem whether it would be infeasible or impracticable. He objected to sub-section (f), stating that they are more or less forced to buy from the one cable company or they might have little choice of a central tower, etc. Mr. Rainwater felt this should be given a great deal more study, as they must work with only one company - there is the one Gas and Electric Company and the one Telephone Company; the developers prefer competitive dealings. Mr. Ray Swanner, representing Bollenbacher & Kelton, stated they would be in favor of this proposed ordinance ~f the Gas & Electric Company would foot the b~ll. He remarked there should be more information about who is to determine the feasibility, etc., of the underground installations. The cost would be prohibitive for many sub- divisions. Director Warren commented that this proposed ordinance was modeled very closely after that of San Diego, and most cities in the County have already adopted this ordinance. -10- Many questions and problems, some discussed here tonight, would be coming up and as yet, cannot be answered. Mr. Warren agreed that whether initially paid by the developer or the utility company, it would be the consumer who would be paying for this cost. Mr. George Bishop, representing the San D~ego Gas & Electric Com~ny, mentioned a few changes he had discussed with the Planning Director. Mr. Frank Ferreira, 3715 Putter Drive, noted the number of restrictions in the City: sliding scale, 7000 square foot lots, 2-car garages, etc. He indicated all his future developments for the next 3 years will have these underground utilities, but now he is speaking primarily for the working-man. Numerous families are now living in apartmen~ and Mr. Ferreira claimed, the developers cannot put these people in houses if the City is to ~mpose all these restrictions. The Light Company claims they can install underground lines for ap@roximately $200. per house, but Mr. Ferreira added, who bears the cost if you run into solid rock? There are numerous problems to cope with. Mr. Bishop stated the cost does depend upon the soil, the width of the lot, etc., and the cost has reduced considerably in the last two-three years. Chairman Stevenson questioned the maintenance costs. Mr. Bishop remarked that he cannot state at this time what the cost would be, as it changes from time to time and is progressively decreasing. Mr. Jack Wolfe, 224 Alpine, stated he is a property owner and a salaried-man, and strongly in favor of something being don to improve the area. He did not feel that Mr. Ferreira's comments represented the "working man." The increased cost of the house would not stop the sale of such by anyone wanting to buy in the area. Mr. K. Niek Slijk, Director, Chamber of Commerce, stated a recommendation was made by the Chamber to the City Council fort he adoption of this proposed ordinance. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Comstock mentioned a recent newspaper article quoting that the FHA is coming to the point of requiring the undergroundlng of utilities. Chula Vista ~s probably the last major city to adopt such an ordi~nce. Member Comstock added that House & Home magazine has been talking underground utilities for the past four to five years. Member Adams felt they might be a little premature on this and should give it further study; he was, however, in favor of getting it started. Chairman Stevenson questioned what would be gained by continuing it. Director Warren stated the staff had no objection to continuing the matter if anything was to be gained by it;the staff sees no reasonable changes to the proposed ordinance resulting from any of the comments made tonight. As to the television antenna, the City will not be making this mandatory; however, the developers have a number of alternatives they can choose on this matter. RESOLUTION NO. 367 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending MSUC (Comstock-Johnson) to City Council Amendment of Chapter 28 of the Chula Vista City Code by Adding Thereto a New Section 28.6.1 Relating to the Undergrounding of Utility Facilities. -11- Findings be as follows: I. The general welfare of the community will be promoted by enhancing the aesthetic vatues of new subdivisions by eliminating unnecessary and unsightly utility facilities. 2. A blanket requirement for undergrounding utility facilities in new subdivisions will promote equity in development and will work toward an eventual reduction in costs. TO BE SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING: Permanent Zoning and Establishment of Setbacks - Certain Properties Now Interim-Zoned Director of Planning Warren reviewed the locations for permanent zoning. The only one that might be controversial, he stated, would be the one at the corner of Bonita Road and Otay Lakes Road that came into the City as C-l-D; the staff is recommending this be changed to R-3-B-3-D to promote a balance of land use in the area, making this multiple-family zoning instead of commercial. The General Plan designates this as a high-density residential area. RESOLUTION NO. 368 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Stating MSUC (Comstock-Johnson) Their Intent to Set a Public Hearing for August 16, 1965 to Consider Certain Permanent Zoning and Establish- ment of Setbacks in Chula Vista (Precise Areas Invotved on file in the Planning Department) DISCUSSION - REPORT OF FINDINGS: Appeal of Commission Action Denying Variance to Mrs. Dorothy Davis for Nurser~ in R-2 Zone Member Comstock was excused from the meeting at this time. The findings were read in which the Commission denied a request for variance for permission to operate a Nursery Home for retarded children at 570 Otis Street, an R-2 zone. MSUC (Guyer-Vaden) Findings be approved and sent to the City Council. DISCUSSION - REPORT OF FINDINGS: Appeal of Commission Action DenyinB Variance to Mr. Edwin Rinner for Reduction in Required Parking The findings were read in which the Commission denied a request for variance for permission to allow parking facilities for five cars instead of the six required by ordinance. A total of six parking spaces would be required after the construc- tion of a new apartment unit. Chairman Stevenson suggested a statement he made be added: that the lot was substandard even for single-family construction. Director of Planning Warren stated that at the time the applicant came in, he stated he could provide only the 5 spaces; however, at the meeting, he claimed he could pro- vide 6 spaces by cutting down on the width of each stall to less than 8.5'. If the Commission so chooses, they can rehear this matter based on this testimony. After discussion, it was concurred there was no change in the Commission's opinion. MSUC (Adams-Guyer) Findings be approved and sent to City Council. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Johnson-Vaden) Meeting adjourn to August 16, 1965 at 7 P.M. Respectfully submitted, (.,~/Jennie Fulasz, Secretary M.