Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964-10-05 PC MINS MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA October 5 , 1964 The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California was ' held at 7:00 P.M. , in the Council Chamber at the Civic Center on the above date .with the following members present: Stevenson, Comstock, Johnson, Adams and Guyer. Absent: Members Stewart and Willhite. Also present: Planning Director Warren, Junior Planner Lee, City Attorney Lindberg and Principal Engineer Harshman. . APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Guyer - Adams) Minutes of September 21 , 1964 be approved, as mailed. REZONINGS PUBLIC HEARING: Robert A. Miles - Southeast Corner Fourth Avenue and Center Street M-1 to R-3 The application was read in which rezoning was requested for property located at the southeast corner of Fourth Avenue and Center Street from M-1 to R-3. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan and explained the location and adjacent land uses and zoning. At the present time, the MOD building stands on the property. Director Warren stated the setbacks on Center Street at the present time were zero and on Fourth Avenue, 20 feet; the applicant wishes to retain these set- backs. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Member Comstock suggested the hearing be continued .until the next meeting in order for the staff to study the rest of the M-1 zoned property in this area and propose a reasonable zoning. This would eliminate .th'e M-1 island in the center of town. Mr. Robert M. Miles , the applicant, felt his rezoning request was in the best interests of the Master Plan and would be in the mutual interest of the City to approve this re- zoning. He stated the property in the back, now zoned M-1 and not under this request, should be rezoned C-1 or C-2 instead of R-3. He asked, however, that his request not be held over until the next meeting because time was of the essence to his plans. Member Comstock remarked that he agreed with Mr. Miles that time was important; how- ever, he cautioned the Commission not to be hasty in proceeding with this rezoning at this point until a study could be made for the entire M-1 zoned area. He added that the corner of Center and Fourth might not be desirable as R-3 and probably should go to C-1 or C-2, but the staff should have the opportunity to study this and come back with an approporate zoning. MSUC (Comstock - Guyer) Public hearing be continued until the meeting of October 19, 1964 so the staff can prepare a study for rezoning the M-1 and adjacent property between Third and Fourth Avenues in this area. -1- PUBLIC HEARING: South Side of 411 Between Madison and San Digo, Arizona, Eastern Railroad - R-1 , R-2 and R-3 to C-2 This being Commission-initiated, Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan of the area noting the properties being considered for rezoning to C-2; that front- age between the railroad and Woodlawn Avenue, a three-lot depth between Woodlawn and Jefferson and the same between Jefferson and Madison Avenues. Director Warren explained that the City• Council had overruled the Commission and granted a variance for a service station at the northwest corner of Albert Baker 's property on the south side of "H" Street just east of the railroad. The City Council , upon the recommendation of the Commission, approved the rezoning to C-2 for the south side of "H" Street between Woodlawn and Oaklawn Avenues. Director Warren then pointed out the proposed setback changes; 5 foot setback line along the south side of "H" Street with 10 foot on the side streets. The existing setbacks along this area vary between 20 and 25 feet. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mrs. Lillian Stone, 518 Jefferson Avenue, stated she owns the remaining R-2 lot on this Avenue and since the 3 lots above her are being considered for C-1 or C-2, she would request that her lot be considered also. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams commented that he has "been in this battle'' from the start approximately six years ago, and has never favored commercial zoning for any of this area; however, it has progressed so far and now has such an illogical zoning pattern that he felt there was little use in opposing it now. He stated, however, that the area that includes the variance granted for the service station and that property east which includes the apartment buildings west of Woodlawn should be left out of the commercial zoning. There is a new apartment building on the corner and the space in between could be taken care of by a variance whereby the Commission would have more control over it. Director Warren declared the only reason the staff recommends rezoning on Jefferson and Oaklawn Avenues is because of the pattern now established between Woodlawn and Oaklawn and across the street. He added he could think of no reason why commercial should go down to include that property owned by Mrs. Stone. Member Comstock remarked she could enjoy transitional zoning which would allow her to use part of her property as C-1 . Chairman Stevenson commented that the Commission must first consider public necessity before rezoning. Member Comstock, referring to the staff's study on the area, stated it was to clean up the "hodge=podge" in the area, and felt based on the variance granted by the City Council , the Commission would be remiss in not rezoning the rest of the area. Chair- man Stevenson noted the multiple=units along the Woodlawn strip and questioned, if rezoned, whether they would be able to put in offices. Director Warren said this would be permitted, if they could meet the parking requirements. Chairman Stevenson remarked this entire rezoning was against the Master Plan which recommended R-3 zoning for this area. The Commission then discussed the proposed setbacks for the area; Member Guyer felt the present ones were compatible. l2e Aim No. 3 a$ MSC (Guyer-Comstock) Rezoning be approved as outlined, and the setbacks left as presently established. -2- Further, findings be as follows : 1. It will be compatible with the zoning on the north side of "H" Street and with the rezoning recently granted by the City Council. 2. It will constitute good zoning practice and allow for future logical development and promote consistency of zoning in this area. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Guyer, Comstock and Johnson NOES: Members Stevenson and Adams ABSENT: Members Stewart and Willhite Chairman Stevenson based his "no" vote on the recommendation of the Master Plan that this entire area would be excellent for R-3 zoning. Member Adams felt it was good sense to leave the western part as R-3 rather than zone it commercial. This would pave the way for rezoning across the street, and if not rezoned, it would make a good pattern on both sides of the street. He added the Commission should compromise here, as there is no need to_ change this to C-1. PUBLIC HEARING: Establishing Setbacks : South Side of Naples Between Monserate and Osage Avenues This being Commission-initiated, Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan showing the location of the property. He noted the existing setback on the north, which is 20 feet. Director Warren explained this south half of Naples between Monserate and Osage Avenues is not dedicated and, therefore, any construction that would take place in this area prior to any dedication need only observe the automatic 25 foot setback and this would compound any future street widening. A 50 foot setback was recommended here in order to reserve 30 feet for any future street dedi- cation, leaving a 20 foot future setback along this stretch. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Herbert Johnson, 206 East Naples, asked how it would effect his prop- erty. Director Warren stated there would be no effect on his property. There being no further comment, either for or against, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Stevenson remarked it would be a benefit to the City. �0o 3a9 MSUC (Comstock - Johnson) The establishment of a 50 foot setback be ap- proved; that public necessity and general welfare require this change in the building line map to protect any of these property owners from unnec- essary hardship in the event of future widening of Naples Street. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING: Highlands Subdivision - East "J" Street at Floyd - Sign and Sales Office -3- The application was read in which a request was made for permission to use the garage of a model home for a sales office and to erect three signs on lots 182, 183 and 184 identifying the house names and one 6' x 10' sign. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location as "J" Street, east of Floyd Avenue. He stated this was a typical request accompanying the opening of a new subdivision tract, which is provided for in our ordinance with a conditional use permit. The applicants are pre- sently operating a sales office in one of their model homes. Director Warren noted the location of the proposed signs and stated they are within the 150 square foot maximum allowed by the zoning ordinance. If approved by the Commission, the staff would ask for the following two conditions : 1. That the permit be allowed for a period of one year or until 90% of the homes are sold, whichever is first. 2. That the sales office be reconverted for vehicular use upon occupancy of the home or expiration of the permit. Member Comstock questioned the need for the permit for the signs and felt a lot of time is being wasted on this matter when they come before the Commission. He felt it should be an administrative function to grant ap- proval of signs of this type and asked the staff to study such a provi- sion. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. There, being no comment, either for or against, the hearing was -declared closed. Chairman Stevenson commented there was nothing detrimental about the request. Member Adams remarked that all signs within the City should be controlled. MSUC (Comstock - Johnson) Conditional use permit be approved subject to the two conditions outlined by the Director of Planning. Further, findings be as follows: 1. Granting this conditional use permit will not be materially detri- mental to the public health, safety or welfare as none of the damage or hazards delineated in the ordinance will be present. 2. The characteristics of the use proposed are reasonably compatible with the types of use permitted in the surrounding areas. The proposed use will be a temporary one and is consistently found in all new sub- division tracts. VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING: (Cont'd) Francis Kinney - 282/284 Third Avenue - R-1 Use in C-1 Zone The application was read in which permission was requested to allow an R-1 use on the second floor of the building at 282-284 Third Avenue, property zoned C-1. -4- Member Comstock stated he and Mr. Adams were unable to view the premises but questioned the purpose of doing so in this case the questions is whether or not a residential use can be justified. Chairman Stevenson declared the public hearing opened. Mr. Francis L. Kinney, the applicant, stated the only changes being made in the apartment would be an improvement; there is no other use for the property. He claimed this was a dwelling unit before the ordinance pro- hibiting residential use in commercial zones went into effect. Member Johnson asked if the Building Inspector was allowed to view- the premises. Member Comstock declared he seriously questioned whether this had any bearing on the variance; Member Adams felt it was "perfectly right" that the Commission should view the premises. City Attorney Lindberg stated it may be that the Commission would want to know more of the use of this property; however, rather than go personally, it would be far better to call the Building Inspector and question him on any matter the Commission may want to see. Member Johnson remarked that the property had been used as an apartment previously and now alterations were being made; he questioned whether they were made before or after the ordinance prohibiting this use went into effect. Director Warren de- clared that the Commission need not determine whether or not a non-con- forming use exists but rather to act on the variance. It has been es- tablished thati,use proposed is not an existing non-conforming use. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was de- clared closed. Member Guyer felt the Commission should not vote on this matter, since it has been turned over to the City Attorney, the matter should rest there. City Attorney Lindberg stated the matter was properly before the Commis- sion. This is a question of use variance (use not permitted within the basic zone ) and if the Commission finds a hardship here and that this particular property cannot be used except for the use requested, it is proper for the Commission to act on that. MSC (Johnson - Comstock) The variance be approved subject to the follow- ing condition: 1. That all construction relating to the residential use shall be in ac- cordance with Building Code requirements. Further, that findings be as follows : 1. There are practical differences and unnecessary hardships within the meaning of Ordinance No. 398 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. This same use exists on the lot directly south and across Third Avenue at several loca- tions; '-that such second floor was not constructed for commercial use. -5- 3. Granting this variance is necessary for the preservation of the sub- stantial property right of the applicant. Applicant has stated said premises were used for dwelling purposes prior to the passage of the ordinance. Without variance, applicant is denied the use enjoyed by several adjacent property owners. 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. Many second floors in this zone are developed in the same manner. Under discussion, the Commission discussed the exceptional circumstances; Member Comstock commented there were many second floors in commercial buildings and the uses are limited; in this particular case he felt it would be a hardship to have it empty. Member Adams felt the exceptional circumstances applied to land only. Member Comstock disagreed, asking how they could divorce 'Eland" from "improvements'E. The Commission fur- ther discussed the number of upper floors being used for apartments in the Third Avenue section. City Attorney Lindberg, commenting on exceptional circumstances and con- ditions, stated it would appear from the ordinance that it pertains to the land, if it is raw land, and any buildings could also be considered as a total package. A building perhaps could not be used under the pre- sent zoning, but could be reasonably used for purposes designated. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Johnson, Stevenson, Guyer (in view of City Attorney' s statement) and Comstock NOES: Member Adams ABSENT: Members Stewart and Willhite PUBLIC HEARING: Highlands Subdivision - East "J" Street - Reduction in in Front Setbacks The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction in front yard setback from 15 feet to 10 feet for property located at the Highlands Subdivision specifically on lots 179, 175, 174, 173, 172, 166, 161, 40, 38, 37 and 35. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the lots in question. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Jack McCafferty, representing the Highlands Subdivision, explained that they thought the size of the proposed home was all right until FHA stepped in. The FHA requires 15 feet of level land; with their present house plan, they could not move it back 5 feet and still maintain the required amount of level land. Member Comstock questioned whether the house plan could be redesigned so as to fit on the lot and still maintain the required setback and the FHA requirement. He added he felt this was more a financial problem than a planning problem. -6- Mr. McCafferty said it was possible a smaller house could be designed to fit the lot. They preferred to build a larger house, however, and deed restrictions would prohibit them from building a two-story house. Mr. McCafferty added that if they are required to move the house back to meet the setback requirement, they would have to put in a 6 foot high re- taining wall. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was de- clared closed. Member Comstock commented that a 15 foot front yard was, in his opinion, too minimum as he would advocate a 25 foot requirement. In this particu- lar case, the only solution he could see would be to redesign the house to fit the lots. MSUC (Comstock - Guyer) Variance be denied for the following reasons : 1. It would not be in the interest of the public welfare to allow single- family homes of this type within 10 feet of the front property line. 2. Since so many lots are involved, it appears to be possible for the applicant to design a house to fit the lot. PUBLIC HEARING: Dr. Leonard Bloom - Southeast Corner Telegraph Canyon Road and Hilltop Drive - Commercial Use in R-1 zone The application was read in which permission was requested to construct a service station, supermarket with allied shops and stores on property located at the southeast corner of Telegraph Canyon Road and Hilltop Drive - a commercial use on property zoned R-1 (residential) . Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot-'.:plan noting the location and adjacent land uses and zoning. He indicated that approval of the general use was sought tonight with the intent of submitting detailed plans at a later date. The drainage ditch would be covered in some manner as the applicant has shown parking on it. Director Warren then pointed out the shopping areas located nearby. In answer to Member Johnson' s question, Director Warren explained the traffic to the college as being . handled primarily on 1ILi6 Street and Telegraph Canyon Road; however, he remarked, some of the traffic would be using this particular road. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Donald R. Goldman, architect for the project, stated the area was now heavily trafficked and would become an important corner. This property - does backP°up residential property; however, it is 30 to 35 feet below - the sight line of the residential area will overlook this project and will look right into the school yard. The highest architectural control will be maintained with all unsightly areas screened; it will be defi- nitely an improvement to the area. Those speaking in opposition were : Mr. Ben Williams, 41 E1 Capitan Drive, Mr. W. T. Hide, 672 Garrett, Mr. Frank Myers, 23 E1 Capitan Drive, Mrs . Myers, 798 Hilltop Drive, and Mr. Ange Mandra, 801 Vista Way. They -7- stated as their objections : (1) prefer to have the area remain resi- dential; (2) commercial project here would deteriorate value of their homes; (3) good area for the City to purchase for a playground; (4) increase of . traffic and danger to pedestrians in the area which are mostly children; (5) there is an ample commercial-business zone not too far away on Telegraph Canyon Road and "L1B Street; (6) no special need exists in this area for a commercial use; (7) applicant would have to construct a 20 or 25 foot high retaining wall because of the steep slope on the property; (8) property is in escrow and applicant does not have the right to petition for rezoning; (City. Attorney Lindberg explained that the ordinance specifies the applicant to be a legal owner or lessee of property; however, one in escrow should have the right to request a variance ) . Chairman Stevenson asked for a show of hands of all others in the audience protesting; it was noted that approximately 25 hands were raised. Two petitions, signed by 26 property owners, were read protesting the request. Letters favoring the project were read from: Joseph Rindone, District Superintendent of the Sweetwater Union High School District (dated November 18, 1960) ; Mr. R. E. Tyson, of Johnson, Tyson and Lynds (dated January 25, 1955) ; Troy W. Homer, Central Southern Baptist Church, 740 Hilltop Drive (dated November 18, 1960) ; and Adolph and Beatrice Dieterle, (owners of property) , (dated September 18, 1964) . Dr. Leonard Bloom, the applicant, stated he would have these letters up-dated if the Commission would so request. He said the property was in escrow contingent upon the title report; that the owners were unable, financially, .to develop the property - an estimated cost would be $150,000. 00 for site preparation. This project would be an added in- come to the City of Chula Vista. Member Adams said he felt it would be an intrusion into the residential area. Member Johnson questioned the high cost of the drainage. Mr. William Harshman, Principal Engineer, stated this could be developed as an open channel or closed as a culvert. The average slope would also be considered here. Mr. Harshman compared this to the drainage facility on "H" Street and the Freeway, stating this runs 15, 000 to 16, 000 cubic feet per second and this is a flat slope. This particular property would take four 7211 pipes which would make it an expensive drainage. MSUC (Comstock - Adams ) Variance be denied for the following reasons : 1. The reasons justifying the variance set forth by the applicant in the application are not within the meaning of the ordinance as set forth and interpreted from time to time. 2. Two such commercial uses are within easy distance on "J" Street and Telegraph Canyon Road and "L" Street. 3. It would be an intrusion into the residential area and detrimental to the public welfare. PUBLIC HEARING: Mrs. William Berry - 302 East James Street - Height Variance in Front Setback -8- The application was read in which permission was asked to erect a five foot high fence within the front setback along Monterey Avenue. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the property and the proposed fence. The applicant desires to build a . fence 5 feet high, five inches from the property line, in order to screen the living area of the home from the street; the sidewalk along the westerly edge of the applicant's property is significantly above the floor level of the home. This being the time and place as advertised, the hearing was opened. Mr. William Berry, the applicant, stated all the points were brought out in the Director' s presentation. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Director Warren suggested the fence be allowed to extend no further north than the doorway on the west side of the home, closest to James Street. There are no windows here, thus no need for the extension of the fence. Member Comstock commented the applicant should double check where her property line was before erecting the fence. MSUC (Adams - Guyer) Variance be approved subject to the following con- dition: 1. The fence is to extend no further north than the doorway on the west side of the home closest to James Street. Further, that findings be as follows : 1. There are practical differences and unnecessary hardships within the meaning of the Ordinance that 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. The lot in question is a corner lot leaving a problem of the living area being ex- posed to the general public. Normally, the fence at the floor elevation, observing the setback, would screen this living area; however, in this case, unless the fence is placed at the top of the slope, it will serve no purpose for screening. 3. Granting this variance is necessary for the preservation of the sub- stantial property right of the applicant. Without the variance to allow this 5 foot high fence within the setback, the applicant is deprived of the privacy enjoyed by other property owners in the area. 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. No objections were heard from adjacent property owners, and no conditions could be seen that would cause an objection. -9- PUBLIC HEARING: James H. Dunkley - 128 Oaklawn Avenue - Reduction in Side Yard Setback - 5 feet to 1 foot The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction in side yard setback from 5 feet to 1 foot to allow for the construction of a carport. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan showing the location and the carport which has been constructed. The applicant got a building permit which indicated the carport would be built within 5 feet of the side yard line; however, it was constructed 1 foot from the prop- erty line, which was then "tagged" by the Building Inspector. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Ralph Huerta, representing Perma-Kool, building contractors, admitted the building department did specify the 5 foot minimum side yard require- ment; however, in order to construct a 10 foot wide carport, it was necessary for them to go to this 1 foot mark. In asking for the variance, the applicant will have a place to put his car under a roof. The carport is free standing with aluminum roof. Member Adams felt it would set a precedent for carports to be built in side yard setbacks all over town; that the Commission has disapproved other cases like this one. Member Guyer agreed, stating there are no exceptional circumstances here since the applicant has plenty of land, and could build in the rear of his property. Mr. Huerta claimed the swimming pool in the back of the house prohibited the construction of a carport in this area, and because of the trees, there was no alley-way to drive back here. Member Adams felt the shrubbery could be taken down; this was no problem. Member Comstock suggested shortening the carport to 8 feet; Member Adams remarked the supporting columns would have to be 5 feet from the property line. Chairman Stevenson commented that it appeared the slope of the carport goes' down into the adjacent property owner's yard. MSUC (Adams - Guyer) Variance be denied because no exceptional circum- stances as delineated in the ordinance that would justify granting the variance. MISCELLANEOUS Architectural Consideration - Dwelling in Bonita Verde Subdivision Director of Planning Warren submitted the plans, stating it would be on lot 17 and compatible with the other homes in the area; shake shingle roof with stucco exterior walls. Member Johnson felt the shake shingle roofing might constitute a fire hazard as noted in the famous Bel-Aire fire and that the City should con- sider an alternate type. He also questioned whether any landscaping plans were submitted as required under the. "D" zone. Director Warren stated there were no plans. Member Adams suggested the landscaping plans as required under the "D" zone be waived. -10- MSC (Guyer - Comstock) Plans be approved, as submitted. Motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Guyer, Comstock, Stevensnn and Adams NOES: Member Johnson - Landscaping plans, as required by the architectural control zone, were not submitted. ABSENT: Members Stewart and Willhite COMMUNICATIONS Request for Deferral of Public Improvements - "L" Street at Telegraph Canyon Road A letter from Mr. Marvin Zigman, President, Mesa Realty, was read asking for deferrment of installation of curb and sidewalk adjacent to the shopping center at "L" Street and Telegraph Canyon Road.. Director of Planning Warren explained the freeway interchange plans for the area. A letter from Mr. William Harshman, Principal Engineer, was read in which he recommended the deferrment be granted until completion of appropriate improvement plans for Telegraph Canyon Road. Such plans must be coordinated with plans under development by the California Division of Highways for a future freeway interchange in this vicinity. He further recommended a bond be posted guaranteeing this installation of improvements. MSUC (Comstock - Johnson) Approval of deferral of public improvements (curb and sidewalk)pending completion of appropriate improvements plans for Telegraph Canyon Road. Such plans must be coordinated with plans under development by the California Division of Highways for a future freeway interchange in this vicinity. 2. That a lien, bond or cash deposit in amount sufficient to cover cost of installing improvements be provided as assurance of completion of such improvements. 3. That applicant will commence installation of required improvements within thirty (30) days following receipt of written notice from the City Engineering Department. Request for T. V. Sales and Service Business - 23 Naples Street A letter was read requesting permission to operate a radio and television sales and service business at the shopping center located at Hilltop Drive and Naples Street. Director of Planning Warren explained the property is znned R-1 and the uses are in there by variance and are uses confined to the C-1 zone, thus the need for Commission approval. Chairman Stevenson stated the use sounds fine to him and questioned the hours of operation. Mr. Jay B. Pugh, representing Rancho Associates, stated the hours would be much less than that now enjoyed by the Mayfair Market in the area. -11- MSUC (Adams - Johnson) Approval of operation of radio and television sales and service business. Request for Amendment to Resolution 64-28 - Allowing storange of vacation-type trailers on property at Third Avenue between "K" and "L" Streets Mr. Edwin Campbell, attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Warren Hatz, stated his clients would like permission to store vacation-type trailers on the property recently granted a variance by the Commission for storage of U-Haul Trailers. He presented an amendment stipulating the trailers would be stored as follows : none during the balance of 1964; 1965 - not to exceed three; during the remainder of the zone variance term, not to exceed 8. The Commission concurred this would not be detrimental in any way. MSUC (Comstock - Johnson) Approval of amendment to Variance No. 64-28. Approval of Steel Rolling Mill A representative from the Quality Steel Corporation, Mr. Sam Jaffe, explained the operation and showed a short film about the operation of the mill. The proposed site would be property containing approximately seven (7) acres, zoned M-2, west of Bay Boulevard, north of "E" Street. The plant and satellites will employ 500 people in the future. Member Comstock indicated the Rohr Corporation has similar production activities in their plant and felt there would be little problem in having this industry located in this area. Director Warren stated he has made no research on this operation. The representatives have indicated a need for expediency, which is the reason they came before the Commission at this meeting. Chairman Stevenson remarked that shipyards and electrical power plants are permitted in this zone and could see no objection to this operation. MSUC (Comstock - Johnson) Recommend to City Council that the proposed industry be approved. Findings be as follows : 1. The proposed use will not be obnoxious or offensive or detrimental to health by reason of the omission of odor, dust, smoke, fumes or other air pollutants, vibration or water carried waste or sterilizing components destructive of digestive bacteria. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Comstock - Johnson) Meeting be adjourned to October 19, 1964. Respectfully submitted, Jennie M. Fulasz Secretary -12- CHULA VISTA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DINNER MEETING September 30, 1964 Sunnyside Steak Ranch Members present were: Stevenson, Stewart, Comstock, Johnson, Willhite, Adams and Guyer. Staff members present were: City Attorney Don Lindberg, Bruce H. Warren, Director of Planning and Ken Lee, Junior Planner. The meeting began with a Cocktail Hour at 6 p.m. , and Dinner at 7 p.m. The purpose of this meeting was an informal get-together to acquaint the Commission with the new City Attorney. No official business was discussed nor was any action taken by the Commission. The first item on the agenda was a discussion on the proper application of a Use Variance and Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Lindberg discussed the difference between a Use Variance and a Conditional Use Permit indicating that provision fo;..variance from the ordinance is made to allow equity in unusual circumstances. It is im- possible to establish a set of rules for all situations that might occur. In cases where unusual circumstances prevent it, the property owner should be allowed adjustment to enable the same use of land as adjacent owners in that zone. Mr. Lindberg cautioned the Commission not to use a variance when rezoning would be appropriate. The Commission then discussed whether or not an economic hardship could justify a variance. The concensus of opinion was that the proper use of land should be based upon environment and need, and that they should not consider or concern themselves with the economic hardship. The Commission then discussed miscellaneous problems related to variances. After discussing conditional use permit procedure, Mr. Lindberg indicated that uses should be allowed by Conditional Use Permit only when the characteristics of such use prevent it from being uniformly desirable in any zone. When the ordinance lists a particular use is allowed in a zone with a Conditional Use Permit, it is the obligation of the Commission to grant -such a permit when supported by the proper findings; however, it is the perogative- of the Commission to either make or-fail to make such findings as appropriate. The Commission concluded that the prerequisites for issuance for Conditional Use Permit should be expanded. . The next item for discussion was the Home Occupation. Permits. Mr. Warren explained the staff procedure in issuing Home Occupation Permits and explained how violation of such permit is controlled. After discussion, the Commission indicated that they were satisfied with the present Home Occupation procedure. The next item for discussion was the responsibility of the City Attorney to the Planning Commission. After discussion, the Commission and the City Attorney agreed that any time the City Attorney detects improper procedure, he should so indicate. _1_ 'f Mr. Lindberg did indicate that he was not a Planner, and that he should have no opinions concerning the •Factual determinations of the staff or the Commission; that his presence was to assist the Commission and to prevent complete variance from proper procedure. The Commission adjourned their discussion at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted,