HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1966/02/21 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY PLA NN)NG COMMtSS)ON OF CHULA VISTA, CAL)FORNIA
February 21, 1966
The adjourned regular meeting of the C~ty Planning Commission was held on the above
date in the Civic Center, Council Chamber, w[th the following members present:
Stewart, Johnson, Vaden, Adams, and Guyer. Absent: Chairman Stevenson, and w]th
previous notif~catlon ~ Member Sm~th~ Also present: Director of Planning Warren,
Associate Planner Manganelli~ Planning Draftsman ~r~sh, C~ty Attorr~ey L~ndberg,
and Principal Engioeer Harshman.
~n the absence of Chairman Stevenson, Vice-Chairman Stewart presided over the meeting.
STA~EMENff~
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 February 7,
1966.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MS~C (Guyer=Adams) Minutes of February 7, ~966 be approved, as mailed.
REZONJNGS
PUBLIC ~EAR]NG: South Side "L" Street West of Broadway - Ernest R. Houghton - M-I to R-3
M-1 to R-3
The application was read in which a change of zone from M-1 to R-3 was requested for
that property on the south side of "L" Street, located 184 feet west of Broadway and
extending southerly for a distance of 338 feet. The requested zone change !s for the
construction of apartments.
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, adjacent land
use and zonings. He stated the applicant proposes to build 122 apartment units oq
this property, lhe General Plan places th~s area in a light industrial or research
classification. At present, the land is vacant and in agricultural use: Zo the north
of this area, the General Plan piaces Jt Js a high-density cJassJfJcation~
Member ?aden questioned whether any study was made as to the amount of industrial
zoning Jn the C[ty. Mr. Warren noted on the map the areas now [ndustrJalty zoned
and the areas designated for industrial zoning on the General Plan~
~h~s being t~e time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr'. A. Lee ~step, Attorney for the applicant, stated his client proposes to construct
a 122-un[t apartment building on this property, which is presently owned by Ratmer~s
and brought into the C~ty [ndustr]a]ly zoned. The applicant presently owns an apart-
ment complex approximately one and one-~alf blocks from this area. Because of the
quiet nature of the operation of Ra~ner's, this adjacent property would be an ideal
location for apartments, on which the applicant proposes to spend three mlllJon
~ol~lars~ He plans to put Jn sufficient landscaping to beautify the area and states
~t would be a benefit to the City.
Member Johnson asked about the parking layout. Mr. Estep noted the areas for parking
indicating that no parking w~ll be seen from the street, and there would be 44 feet
between the cars and the building°
Mr. Elmer Bliss, 898 Riverlawn Avenue, questioned whether this proposed rezoning
would prohibit commercial zoning of adjacent areas in the future. He had no object]on
to the proposed apartments, as he felt Jt would be an improvement over the weeds there
Chairma~ pro rem Stewart explained to Mr. Bl~ss that any application would be con-
s~dered on its own mer~ts~
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed~
Member Adams commented that at the t~me this property was zoned industrial, the
Comisslon would not have favored it if the property clear to Broadway had not been
~cl~ded~ He felt the Commission properly zoned this area; that there is more need
for industrial land than R-3 zoned land in this area° He added ~t would be a very
bad zoning practice to put residential use between these two zones,,
Chairman pro rem Stewart remarked that the C~ty now has an overabundance of R-3
zoned land that is not so developed.
Member Johnson ~ndlcated that the development appeared to be a good one except for
the location.
MSJC (Guyer-Adams) Request for rezoning be denied for the following reasons:
t,. The General Plan designates industrial uses for the property~
Abutting the parcel on the east are commercial uses and on the west with
an ~d~strial use~
On the north, across mlLl~ Street, is a truck terminal and warehouse. This
terminal utilizes "L" Street as ~ts only access to the terminal~ It ~s
not felt that the excesslve heavy truck traffic generated by a truck
terminal and the uses on the east and west sides of the property are con-
duciva to a pleasant residential atmosphere~ There appears to be no
justification whatever of intruding residential uses into this industrial
4. Since t08 of the 429 acres of R-3 zoned land ~n the City are undeveloped,
tva necessity for more R-3 zoning of this type ~s questionable~
indossriial development provides a vital contribution to the economic wel~-
being of any city, Before any industrlal land is rezoned for other uses,
adequate justification must be provided which shows that e~ther the city
has an overabundance of ~ndustrially-zoned land or the land ~s iii-suited
for ~ndustr~al purposes~ ~t does not appear that either of these conditions
preva;I,
PdB~!C NEARI~2~ Southeast Corner Bonita Road and Sandalwood Drive - Shell 0~1 Company
and Frank Ferre~ra R-3-B to
T~e applicat~o~ was read ~n which a request was ~ade for a change of zone from
to C-1 fo~ property at the southeast corner of Bonita Road and Sandalwood Drive for
-2-
the purpose of constructing a service station on the easterly 150 feet of this parcel.
D~rector of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the area to be rezoned
stating the property is now zoned for multiple-family use and is vacant; to the east
is the site of the proposed convalescent home approved by the Commlssion. Mr, Warren
then submit:ted an overlay showing the alignment of the Interstate 805 Freeway and
the area proposed for tourist-commercJal zoning on the General Plan. He said he
discussed this aJignment with the Division of H~ghways and they sent the staff a map
del[neatlng this ~nterchange. They indicated the map was for study purposes only
and had not yet been forwarded to the State. it is assumed that construction will
start in 1968 and be completed by 1972. From this map, it is assumed that the inter-
c~ange w~ll be approximately 800 feet east of the applJcant's site.
Th~s be~g the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Ray Powel~, representing Shell Oil Company, explained the proposed construction
of the service station. Because they are particularly interesting in putting in
something n~ce in the Bonita Valley, they plan to construct a ranch-type station with
~imulated shake shingles for the roof, pains verde stone construction. They plan
to have planting areas around the property - these would be attractively landscaped.
Mr. Powel] declared that they feel that this is an area well adapted to freeway-
oriented business.
Mr. Frank rerr'e~ra, 3715 Putter Drive, present owner of the property, spoke of the
proposed frontage road stating that he worked with Mr. Shepard of the Division of
Highways on this. ~e stated that at one time he was able to get a commitment from
Mr. S~epard in writing as to the alignment; however, this had to be changed. The
Division of Highways, nevertheless, assured him that he could go ahead with his
development. Mr, Ferreira then noted a proposed frontage road which could be conI
structed from this area east to Vista Hill Road. He said he contacted every property
owner within 300 feet of this requested rezoning and presented a petition of signatures
favor'[ng the request.
Director Warren noted that the general development of this area has been discussed
several times, and they look forward to good tourist-commercial zoning near this
interchange~ T'he primary concern of the staff here, however, is that the specific
location of the freeway has not been determined. One noteworthy example of this is
that property further to the east was rezoned commercial by the County sometime ago
pending this same interchange location, which subsequently moved westerly leaving an
erroneous zonlog pattern unrelated to the interchange. Mr. Warren indicated that
they could end up with something that is not going to be oriented to the freeway
interchange here, and that the Commission must be very sure that it will be a good
zoning pattern for the area. At this time, the staff cannot make any recommendation
until they are sure of the freeway alignment.
Member Vaden declared that the alignment of the 805 Freeway should definitely be tied
down so that the CommJsslon can be fair to the property owners. He suggested they
hold this matter over for a reasonable length of time so that the State can give the
City a definite commitment on this freeway alignment.
Mr. Ferrelra ;ndicated that the frontage road should have some bearing on this request;
that the convalescent home wilt be starting construction within 60 days, and if the
rezon~ng request is granted, he will run th~s frontage road through. Mr. ~erreir'a
declared that Mr. Oekema had informed him that should the freeway alignment be
moved again, it will not move any further to the west; it will be to the east and not
more th~n JO0 feet,
Director Warren declared the staff will do everything possible, through the office
of the £:h~ef Administrative Officer if necessary, to 9et some direction from the
Div~sio~ of ~ighways as to where this will go. About 6 months ago, Mr'~ Shepard ~nI
formed the department that the alignment at that time was definite; s~nce it has
again moved, he will not make a defln~te statement on this until a decision Us reached.
Chairma,~ p;ro tam Stewart ~ndicated this was h~s opinion also.
Member doh~r~s:~,r~ commented that the applicant is not worried about the freeway going
any further east:. He added that he feels there are not many service stations in this
area and inquired whether or not the service station would be permitted in the County.
D~rector Warren remarked that by the t~me the interchange is ready for construction,
the Co~;qzy would have progressed further with their General Plan, and it is hoped
that they wit1 honor ours in considering any rezonings for this area. At present,
the adjacent la!r~d in the County ~s zoned for single-family residential use.
Mr. Ferreira asked if the request could be considered on its own merit, and dis-
regarding the freeway. Chairman pro rem Stewart felt it could not; t~t it would
be disapproved if ~t were not related to the Freeway.
Mr. Ferreira said he doubted that the State Divls~on of Highways would give the
City any def~ri~e >tatement on the alignment, at this time.
l'here being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
Member Adams commented that there were two different ideas here as to whether or not
the Freeway alignment was firm. 7he Planning D~rector has not been able to get a
definite word from the Highway Department; therefore, the Commission must be guided
by the advice they get from the Planning Staff. Mr. Adams declared the (ommlssion
has no other course but to continue the matter and firm up the freeway location;
that iiz wouid be u:nwise to take any act on this until they have a firm alignment.
Director War~en indicaLed that nothing less than 30 days would be of any value, which
was accept:abile ~o the applicant.
MSSC (Guyer=:ohnson) Matter be continued to the meeting of March 21 i~ order to try
to get a f~rm statement from the D~vislon of Highways concerning the ~ocation of the
proposed interchange with Interstate 805 Freeway and ~on~ta Road.
C:aND~It0NAL USE PERMITS
PdBL]C ~EABi~[;: ghelt 0il Company and Frank Ferrelra - 2800 Bonita Road - Request to
Build Service Station
MS~C [Johr:son~ader,)~ear~n9 be continued to the meeting of March 21, 1966 since it
relates to the above rezonir~g requesL,
P.,8~C FEARING: (£ontld) John D, McKinney - Southeast Corner Fourth Avenue a~d Street - Reduction in Setback and increase in Sign Size
Director of Planning Warren stated that since the requested rezoning was denied by the
City Counci~ on ~ppeal, action on this conditional use permit and the variance which
follows should be filed,
City Attof'~ey Li~dber9 declared that there would be no point in considerin9 these two
matters; t~,ey should be filed since they are directly related to the rezonin9 which
was der~ied,
MSU£,(Ad~m¢-Vaden) Co~ditlonal use permit and variance request be filed,
~4~
_P~.~ZiC -EAR!NG~ James L~ ~ove_joy - 290 E, R~e~tra Street - S~deyard Setback Red~ct~o~
from JO feet to 4 feet
~r~e ~pp~c~t~ w~ re~d ~ w~c~ a ~eque~t was ~e for a reductio~ ~ ~de y~rd
setback ~r~m ~0 ~eet ~ 6 fee~ 6 ~nches a~d 4 feet (a l~e fo~g the top of the
ex~st~g ~op~ ~o~ t~e p~rpo~e of erecting a ~e~ce~
O~rec~o~ of P!a;; ~g Warrez ~uOm~tted a plot p~an no~ng the location, ~'h~s ~s a
corre~ ~ot ~ ~ s~th~a:st co~r~r of Marl a~d R~enstT'a ~treet. The fe'~ce ~s almost
cgmp~et~d~ ~ 'g beer. bu~l~ w t~Ou~ a bu~ld~-~g perm~t~ The variance ~ be~r,g ~ought
to 6vo?d mov~,ig the fence ~ad t~e fer~ce beer~ bd~Jt four fee~ further back, the ~six
foo~ ~eg~t would ~ot h~ve requ~ed a variance; however, th~s ]s with~,~ hi~ :setback
area a~d wo~,d be restrlcted ts 3~ feet~ The applicant has cons~r~cted Chis fence
om t~e top o~ ~1i~ ~;ope to ~vo~d 'tearing an unusable space outside.
T~s be~g t~'c t ~e and p~ace a~ ~dverz ~e~ the public hear~r.g wa~; opened.
~7 James '~ovejoy~ the app[~c~nt~ z~rated he bu ~t ~he fence on the top of Lhe hank
rather zhan back of the ~etDack l~e so that ~he 8rea between the fence ~r~d the top
of tge s~ope wou~d rot: h~ve to be me]nta~ed separately. A~ present~ r~e has ce
plaqt o~ the ~'~ope T~e gre~te:.-t d~stance from the top of the slope to Lhe setback
line ~ 6 ~eet~
Mr~ Fr~,k E ie,rre"ra, 37!5 Putter Dr~ve~ ~oz~ta, spoke ]~ favo~ of tbs request.
He se~d ~e w~ :am~'~ ar w~tP th~s type of ~opogr~phy~ and s~at:ed Lhat tiff ~ea betwee~
the fe'~ce a'-d >~ope could become a weed patch, ~f not properly ma~-~tai~ed
Those spe~k -g ' oppos~o~ were: Don C~rre~, ~440 Marl Court, w~]'~am Der as~,
J442 Ma~l C~rt~ Wi~[ lam land, er, ~439 Mar~ Court, and Sh~iey M~[~e~, 284 c~ R~enstre
Stree~ ~*~ey stated as their objec~io~?: LI) everyone I~v~ng ~r tre C~u't Pas
house f~'c~"g the C~u~t and from the~e komeg, they c~n see nothi,~g but this 6 foot
hi/g~ reface; [~2~ -o rea~o~ co here :~ 6 foot h~gh ferce for ~he ~.ake of protect
chi~dre~ (3j fer~ce should be moved back and the aree ~andscaped; (4) ~t depreciates
:he vfl'~ie ~f the ~,,ome:~ ~-~ the Court; (5) ~t ~s ar eyesore and ~ detr~me:~ to t~e other
~o~e ~ t~ : ~mmed ace aree~ (6) the tomes]re just opposite this ore o~ the wezt has
the ~me ~q..ere fo.,~ege ~,qd they a~s~ P~ve three ch[(aren~ they fee~ ro "~eed to erect
tb?s ~9" - fe~ce~ ~.77 a J~we~ed fence wo~d be more attractive since the p~'operty
owner, wo~d ~e ~b'le ~o yew shrdb~- gr~tead of fer. ce~ (8) should be aesthetic stenda~d~.
rtfe E ~y -~ cortrol t~e type of fence to be constructed.
E~ty At~:o~ ey ~; ':dberg sta:ed th~: ~he applicant ~s now aware of tke a~sthet c
probiems t ~' ~e~e beer r~: sed cor~cern~g his fe".ce, t]s d~ff~cuit, however, to
~mpose ~tr~r:ge't cor~d]t~o~ o~r~ ~'-dsc~p:-,g s~'ce th~s game fence cou]d be bb[~t back
of tb~e ':e'back e~ :o~9 ~s t compS: e~ with C~cV requirements. MemDer 5o~n~.o~ corn~
merted t~ tr.:e c~mmr:~&,~ co~d impose ~cn co'~d]tions.
~here Cer:g o fu~e,r commen~, eitr~r for or aga~r,~t, the hearing was decCa'red closed.
(~a rm~r p~o zero Stewart commented that the fau~t here 1les ]n ~he des~g~ of ~he ferce
~nd t~e w~y ire louse faces or: the
Member ~de~~ :~ he fe'~t the (;omm~ss~on wou~d De out Of i~ne ~n ~L~pu~.~-~9
height ot r-,e re'ce; the reque~t w~:~ fo, ~pproval of a red,ct]on ]~ ~etback
D recto, W-~"e' ~r~d~c~ted ~he Corem s o~ could impose a he[ght ]~mit - erythi~g be~wee~
3~ feet ~;0 ~ fee~, ~f they fo dec,red.
The C:ommiss~or: d~scussed the possibillty of the applicant planti~9 some shrubs
just outside the fence in order to break the monotony of the fence itself. Mr. Love-
jo¢ stated Fe would be w[llin9 to put in some shrubs here and to cut down the fence
i6 ]~ches. Mr. Warren felt that an effective landscape plan could be worked out
between +:he applicant and the staff.
Member Ada~ :~uggested the fence ~ot be extended any further in the front than the
rear of zhe garage, a~d the fence connected here to the garage. ~e felt that ~f
the ~pp];,z~t h~d come in in the beginning to ask about a setback reduction, the
Comm]ss[or could have given him suggestions for a more attractive looking fence ~nd
he wouid ¢;ot r~ve th!s objection. Mr. Lovejoy declared that he did not wish to con-
sect the fence to the garage; tha~ he had plans for that area of land which he
enclosing ~t zn~i~ poir:t.
Vh~iy~: pr~a rem ~tewar~ sa~d he could see n;~ reason to impose this restriction: that
the ~ppi~ca~t has already agreed to lowering the fence and to put:ting in some ~hrubbery.
r-e added tha~ the resideots ~n this ~eighborhood would be better off by accepting the
appl]c~t"s
MSC ~iohn~or:-~uyer) Variance for reduction ~n setback be approved subject to the
¢o~ow~ng co~d~ioa~:
Fence to be constructed to a height not exceeding 4 feet 6 inches.
2. Slope t:o be maintained by an adequate living ground cover.
3. Shrubs shall be planted at the base of the fence in a free-form manner
to relieve the effect of the solid wal], but to avoid monotony. The
planting plan shall be approved by the Planning Department.
Findi%g5 be as follows:
1. ~hat t~ere are practical differences and u~necessary hardships within the mea~i~g
of Or'di~ce No, 398 8s amended which would result in the strict compliance of
the provisions of said ordinance. So stated a3 delineated below.
2. There ,~re exceptional circumstance% and conditions applicable to the property
herein [h'¢olved or' the [nte~ded use thereof that do not apply generally to
property or class of uses in the same zone. ]'he height of the existiag ba~k (5½"
plus ~:! allowable 3½' fence would be 9' high from the sidewalk. The addJt~o~ai
height :~f a 6' far, ce will not alter the sight distance. The rear of th[s
f~ces ~p3~ a street and a 6; fence is needed for privacy.
3. ~a~'¢~i~g thils variance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial
property righ[ of the applicant. W~thout the variance, the applicant will be
deprived of ~he normal privacy enjoyed i~ a rear yard area. T'his would aisc
leave a hard-to-maintai~ area at the top of the bank.
&. 6ranE~g this variance will ncc be materially detrimental to the public: welfare
or ~njur~ous to zhe property improvements in the zone or district in which said
property is located. A~ al]owab'~e fence of 3½' setting at the top of bank would
exceed the normal height aJlowed for e fence alone.
The mot~or, carried by the following vote, toiwit:
Members ~ohnson, Guyer, Vaden, Stewart
Member Adams
Member Stevenson and Smith
PU3L~C hiEARiNG: golland E, Allen - West S[de Hilltop Drive Near Inter'section of
T'e[e9raph, Canyon Road - Front Yard Setback Reduction from 25 feet to
15 feet
lhe applic:at~on was read in which a request was made for a reduction in front yard
~etback from 25 feet to 15 feet for the purpose of constructing a dwell~ng~
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location and adjacent
land use. The parcel fronts on Hilltop Dr~ve and the rear lot is bisected by two
easemer,~s~ one easement i~ 15 foot w~de, running adjacent to the rear property
amd the other is loca~ed 30 feet from the rear property llne and measures In feet
wide~ 'hese easements are on a severe slope. In view of this, the applicant ~:~
asking for the front yard setback in order to accommodate the house he had des~gne~
for this Int.
This being the time and place as advert~:~ed, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Rol'!and Al~len~ ~he applicant:, stated he was present to answer any questions;
h~ application was self-explanatory.
T~ere being ne comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
MemPer Adams stated this was a reasonable request and in conformance in every way
to the o~dinance requirements for a variance.
MS~¢ (Adam~-Vader~) Variance request: be approved. Findings be as follows:
1. lhere are practical differences and unnecessary hardships w~thin the meaning of
Ordinance No. 398 as amended which would result in the strict compliance of the
provi~io~s of said ord~na~ce. So stated as delineated below.
2. Ther~ are e~ceptlonal circumstances and conditions applicable to the property
herein ~nvolved or the intended use therof that do not apply generally to property
or class of uses ~n the same zone. The easements across rear of s~te and a ~5 foot
us.~ble rear yard requirement by Cal-Vet reduces the buildable lot area to 2700
square feet with a 25 foot front setback.
3. Grsnt~g this variance is necessary for the preservation of the substant!al
property right of the applicant. Without the variance, the applicant wou~d be
deprived o~ the use of a major portion of h~s property.
4~ ~ra~£,!mg th~s variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
or injuriou~ to the property improvements in the zone or district in which said
property ~s located, l'he majority o~ the houses along Hilltop Drive from
Street to "C" Street enjoy a setback of less than 25 feet. The plan will provide
for 26 feet between garage door and sidewalk which is in excess of our requirements.
P'~BiiC HEAPINi~: (Conrad) Proposed Ordinance Regulating Display of Political Signs
Ch~,i.~mam p~3 rem Stewart stated this ordinance was the result of the efforts of the
[itv Attorney and Planning staff to regulate signs during an election campaign
residential zo~,es.
Membe~ A~am$ felt the fee for taken9 down si9ns should be more than one del!ar as
req.[,ed in the proposed ordinance; he felt ~t should be at least five dollars,,
C~ty Ar~3~eey Lindbe~g stated that in th~s case, the removal of a sign would Oe con-
sidered es pa~t of the cost of the election. Normally, they will 9et out and remove
these s~g~ since they would be ]2 square feet maxlmum and not too heavy for property
owners to F~ndle. Two rights are ~nvolved in this proposed ordinance: the r~ght of
political expression and the rights of a property owner buyin9 in a res[dentiai
~ei9hborhooa where sig~s are proposed to be d~spJayed. Mr. Lindber9 sald he felt ~t
would be ali right to restrict the freedom of speech ri9hts so 1on9 as !t is -easonable.
7he City wou]ld not want to permit year round campaigns that would be detrime~:tai to
the property rJgh~s. 'They do however, want to eocourage the ri9ht of po!it~cal ex-
p~es~io~n i~ a residentiaJ neighborhood as long as it doesn't get out of ~aqd- I~mitlng
~he ~;ig~s ~o a certain per[od of time, size, etc., would take care of this.
T~:e ~otal absence of sig~s in the C~ty would 9ire cause to concern ~ r:o the fdct
that peopie are ~at concerned with expressln9 their views. Cert~r~ ~t:e-~ds~rd~ ~hf~uid
be ~et wizh }liimi~atio~s that wou!d protect the property ri9hts ar,d freedom of ~peech
of ~F~e c~tize~s. ]t has bee~ deciared that viol~tio~i of this sectlo~ ~ ~
r~u!~:a~ce~ ~,i~!a[ors could be prosecuted u~der a crlmin~l complaint.
Chalrma~ pr~ [em Stewart felt three doil~rs would be more of an ~cer~tive to
the sig~:; removed.
Member Vade~ stated ~he proposed ordi~aece was very well wr~tten~ however,
po~rtion of it s~ould be devoted to protectin9 nei9hbors that would have s stroh9
oppositior to a s!9n, as btockin9 their view~ etc. C[~y Attorney ~i~dber9 stated !t
wo~id be difficdl~ to wr~t:e i~ such a clause, as the ordlnacce was Pot writter to
p~otect or:e property owner, but r~t:her for the entire community.
~emeer Ad~m$ remarked ~ha~ the City ordinance states that noLh]n9 i~ the fro~t setback
wi~;! be ~:~ghe:~ ~h~m 3½ feet~ he felt a 6 foot sign wou'id be too h~igh. ['here sh,~u[q be
~ :,t~pula~,o~ here that ~li si'9~s withi,a the setback area wiil be no higher ther~ 3½
feet.
Mr. Fra~:k ~erreira~ 3715 Fut:te~ Dr[ve, Bonita, questioned the signs ]n windows.
g?recco~ W~rrer~ :st,:ted in these cases, it would not be in the setback.
~i'~ beir~g t',e time dnd place as advertised, the public hearth9 was opened.
!'here bei-9 ~o comment, either for or against, the hearin9 was declared closed,
g£~OL~i~i}N ~,~o 394 gesolu~o~ of the City P;annln9 Commlssio~ Recommend!r~9
MSUC (,~uyer-.;ohnson) to City Council an Ordinance Amending Chapter 33 of the
Chula V~sta City Code by AddJn9 Thereto a New Section
33.5~.11Relatin9 to the Control of Po]~tlcai Si9ns
Approval of Business - 13 Naples Street
A !utter was read from a Mr. Gaspare Apparito requesting permission for the establlsh~
me~t of an ~ta~ia~ restauran~:oServing beer and wine in the Country Club Square Shop-
pln9 Center.
D~rector Warren stated th~:~ restaurant ~s proposed for a vacant building in the
~e~.te . The appticar~t would have to appiy for a license with the Alcohollcs Beverage
Control and thi's would also have to be approved by the City Council.
3it¢ Attorney Lindberg stated it was the prerogative of the City, through their zoncng
iaws to determine the dispensation of beer and w~ne. ~he City my, because of Poi~ce
problem~ raise objections to this partlicular site.
D~ector War~e~: indicated that the act of the Comm~sslon should show ~;~ one way or
a~2the', that they have co~sldered the sale of beer and wine incidenta~ to the sale of
food.
~S~£: {Ad~m:~-Guyer* Approval of request which approval is for the use only and does not:
con:stit~;t:e approva¢ of the sa'la of beer and wine. This is subject to A.5. C. approva3,
Special ~eeti~ - ~arch i, 1966
5!rector of Flarm~ng Warren stated it was necessary to call a special meetJr:g of the
Commlss~on for ]'uesday, MarcF ], i966 et 3:30 p.m. to consider the cowstruction of
three warehouse buiidlngs to be located on l~delands Avenue at the foot of ~6'~ Street.
6~der the "T" zone, every use that ~ considered for the tldelands area is subject to
Commission a~d C'ou~cll approval. The applicants have a dead 1 ne that they m~st meet;
he,ice, the reason for the special meeting.
MS~C (~ade:r:~,iio~r:$on) Resolution of the C~ty Planning Comm~ss~or~ Calling a Spec~
RE'SgL.~TIO~ N3. 395 Meeting for March t, 1966 at 3:30 P~M.
fw~-"ower~ Project
Mr, Frank E. re~re~ra, 3715 Putter 0r~ve, Bonita, President of Greater $outhwes~e,rn
Corporation, thanked the Commission and the staff for all the help they gave him on h~s
high,-ri:~e project, ~e stated that many problems have been worked out because o~ the
staff's help.
AO~3uRNMcN
MS~C (radar-Adams) Meeting adjourn to Tuesday, March 1, 1966 at 3:30 p.m. in the
¢ounci~ C~embers.
Respectfully submitted,
~ Jennie M. Fu'lasz
Secretary
-9-