Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1968/05/06 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA May 6, 1968 The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California, was held at 7 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Guava Avenue, with the following members present: Stewart, York, Hyde, Gregson, Rice and Adams. Absent: (with previous notification) Member Guyer. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, Assistant Planner Lee, Planning Draftsman Liuag, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. APPROVAL OF MINUTES City Attorney Lindber9 asked that the statement he made on page 8, paragraph 8, in regard to the variance of L. Kuebler, 370 K Street, be changed to read as follows: "City Attorney Lindberg added that the drainage ordinance prohibits anyone from changing the natural water courses without first obtaining a permit from the City of Chula Vista, and further, that the City requires the drainage of the property to be directed to the street." MSUC (York-Hyde) Approval of the minutes of April 15, with the correction as noted. City Council Referral - Request for rezonin~ from interim R-l-B-lA to R-l, R-3-B-3 and C-N - Property south of Allen School Road and west of Otay Lakes Road - Tri-County Building, Inc. Director of Planning Warren explained that this is a referral from the City Council. It involves the rezoning of that area known as the Whispering Trails Subdivision, which matter comes next on the agenda. This revised map comprises 86 of the original 186 acres. Director Warren discussed the rezoning request as relating to the subdivision map. He noted that the original map delineated a C-N zone and the revised map has this area changed to R-3-B-3. In referring this back to the Commission, the City Council specified the following items to be considered: (1) A study be made of traffic to and from Allen School Road from the proposed development; (2) Study the possibility of widening Allen School Lane; (3) A thorough study be made of the drainage problem this development will create in the area; (4) A thorough study of sewers to be sure they are available and can accept the additional load. This matter will be back before the City Council at their meeting of May 14, which will be a continued public hearing; tonight's consideration by the Commission is not a public hearing. Mr. Warren then discussed the Planned Unit Development ordinance as proposed by the Commission. He stated that this ordinance will be before the Council May 7 for its first reading. However, before a planned unit development is considered, the Commission should first determine the appropriate underlying zoning for this area. The staff is again recommending that R-l-B-20 zoning be proposed and that the applicant be encouraged to submit plans for a Planned Unit Development based on this density. -2- Mr. Eugene Cook, Civil Engineer, stated he is representing the applicant. He explained that the revised area for rezoning now comprises 86 acres out of the 186 originally proposed. The other lO0 acres was left out due to financial reasons which the applicant felt he couldn't meet due to the continued hearings on this matter. For the purpose of this rezoning the area shown on the map as R-3-B-3 should remain C-N. The density the applicant is trying to get is the minimum he feels is necessary to go ahead with the development. He indicated he would prefer the R-l-B-15 as a workable solution, but not the R-l-B-20. Mr. Cook remarked that the subdivision will involve 70.2 acres of single-family lots and 15.8 acres for the R-3 and Commercial uses. Mr. Bruce Marberg, 4319 Allen School Lane, expressed concern over the drainage and sewer problems of this area; he felt the matter should be held up pending a thorough sewer study. Chairman Stewart explained that these problems will be taken care of in the analysis of the subdivision map. Mrs. William Spies, living on the westerly end of Allen School Lane, said she is speaking for the people in this area, opposed the rezoning request stating it is completely out of character. It would create a population too great for the amount of land involved; the traffic problem alone would create a hazard for the school. She added that the proposed road through the school property is opposed by the School Board. Mrs. Spies then discussed the history of the zoning in this area which she declared was established in 1949 as one acre. It would be good to keep it this way, and the people in the area certainly do not want it to go any lower than the 20,000 square foot lots as originally reconm~ended by the Commission. Mrs. Spies then asked that any member of the Commission having any business association with the applicant, Frank Ferreira, disqualify himself from the hearing because of a conflict of interest. Mr. Close, President of the Parents' Club of Allen School, stated they oppose this rezoning because of the population density it would create; the traffic problems around this school; and the two roads in the area (Allen School Lane and Allen School Road) cannot handle the traffic. Member Adams stated he holds the same stand as the previous recommendation-- that of R-I-B-20; anything higher than that would be incompatible with the area. The R-3 zoning proposed would place the density way out of line. He wouldn't object to a planned unit development providing the density isn't any greater than R-l-B-20 zoning. Under this planned unit development zoning, the Commission is permitted to grant the applicant the 25% density bonus, but they are not required to do so. Director Warren discussed traffic circulation. The majority of the traffic would be onto Otay Lakes Road; the traffic that would generate onto Allen School Lane and Allen School Road would depend on what will be done with North Ponderosa Drive. Mr. Warren stated that he did discuss the Council's referral with the City Engineer, but they have reached no conclusion to this problem. As to the widening of Allen School Lane, only that segment that -3- borders the subdivision property would be widened. The drainage and sewer problems would be routinely taken care of when the map is considered. He further explained, in answer to the Commission's inquiry, that the access road from Allen School Lane to the subdivision would be used by 41 homes. There will be a report from the Division of Engineering before the matter goes back to the City Council. Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, stated that the Traffic Engineer made a study of the area last Friday, but has not submitted his report to this date. There will be an average of 287 trips a day made from these 41 homes, and this road could handle this traffic. Mr. Gesley mentioned that as many as 25 more homes on the easterly side of this area could be using this road. Most of the people living in this subdivision will be going down Bonita Road rather than Allen School Road. As to the widening of Allen School Lane, there are no plans to do this at this time. The developer would be required to widen that section bordering the subdivision to 20 feet. The items concerning the drainage and sewerage will be taken care of at the time the map is considered. Member Rice commented on the additional 25 homes using this access road; averaging this out to four trips per family per day, the total trips would be 175; then, counting the other 287 trips, would make a total of 462 trips a day. MSUC (Hyde-Adams) Commission hereby reiterates their original recommendation that the entire area be rezoned R-l-B-20. They also encourage the applicant to proceed with plans for a planned unit development in accordance with such density. In considering the four areas of concern delineated by the City Council for further study, the Commission found that these matters are primarily concerned with the analysis of the subdivision map. Prior to the approval of the final subdivision map, the staff will have made the determination that drainage and sewerage will be properly accommodated. Based on the information submitted by the Division of Engineering, the Commission believes that Allen School Road and Allen School Lane would be capable of carrying that portion of the traffic that would be generated onto these streets by this subdivision. The City Engineer is asked to present more specific information in this regard to the City Council before a final decision is reached. Subdivision - Whispering Trails - revised - Tentative Map City Attorney Don Lindberg advised the Commission that since the subdivision map does not conform to the zoning that has just been recommended, he would suggest they deny the map so that the applicant can be given a chance to appeal. Mr. Eugene Cook agreed, stating they plan to bring this to the City Council. MSUC (Adams-Hyde) Denial of the map because it does not conform to the rezoning recommended by the Commission. -4- PUBLIC HEARING - (Council referral) - Rezonin§ from R-1 to R-3, R-1 to C-I~ R-3 to C-l, and C-N to C-1 - Property alon9 both sides of Telegraph Canyon Road between proposed Inter- state 805 Freeway and Oleander Avenue Director of Planning Warren explained that the initial request before the Commission was for a rezoning from R-1 to C-1 and R-3 for that area along the south side of Telegraph Canyon Road, east of the proposed Inland Freeway. The recommendation to the City Council was that the area be rezoned as requested with the attachment of the supplemental "D'' zone, and that setbacks be estab- lished at 15 feet. At the Council meeting the matter was referred back to the Commission with the request that the previous staff recommendation be reconsidered and that a hearing be called to consider rezoning the C-N zoned property on the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road to C-l, and the R-3 zoned property to C-1 on both sides with the establishment of 15' setback. The staff's original recommendation to the Commission was that the 1/2 acre on the wouthwest corner be zoned C-N to accommodate a service station and the rest of the area be zoned R-3-D; that a hearing be called to consider rezoning from R-3 to C-N that 12 acres north of Telegraph Canyon Road between the existing C-N site and Crest Drive. The staff pointed out that if they are thinking in terms of a "community" shopping center, it should be situated on one site, rather than the two locations. Mr. Warren submitted a map noting the configuration of the major interchange in this area. Chairman Stewart noted the areas south and southeast of this area and asked how many acres of commercial zoning would be needed to accommodate the future needs of this area. Director Warren indicated it would be between 10 and 25 acres. The intangible that they are confronted with here is the amount of business generated by the freeway traffic. There is a question in the minds of the staff as to the need for more commercial zoning in this location. They are not challenging the amount of zoning as requested, but are challenging the need for more than this. There should be a market analysis made to justify the need for any more commer- cial zoning. Chairman Stewart commented that there is another freeway paralleling 805, and when they say they are talking about a major interchange, they are not talking about through traffic so much as people going to and from their homes. Telegraph Canyon Road will probably continue to serve primarily residential areas. There- fore, there will be a need for a community shopping center, and he questions the area being rezoned R-3 if they feel now that they may need this any time in the future for commercial purposes. Director Warren stated this was true and this is the determination that the Commission must make. Unfortunately, the staff does not have enough information on hand to make 'this recommendation. If the need can be justified, it would be unfortunate to do anything to prevent total commercial in the area. The staff, however, feels there is no justification shown at this time for rezoning in access of that which would create a 10-15 acre site. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. -5- Mr. Dennis Wittman, president of the Saratoga Development Corporation, the original applicant, stated this is the major interchange on 805 going into the Chula Vista area. The interchange is designed in such a manner that the southeasterly quadrant has the greatest exposure to traffic and the easiest turning motion into this property. He briefly discussed Mr. Burford's (Planning Consultant) report in which it was stated that there is a need for additional shopping facilities here. They have no objection to the commercial center across the street--it will not affect them in any way. Mr. Wittman indicated that his organization has the money and are ready to go ahead with their development now. Mr. DeWitt Higgs, Attorney representing Gilbert Dreyfuss (owner of the R-3 property north of Telegraph Canyon Road), stated he resides in Chula Vista at 12 Toyon Lane and is quite familiar with the area. Mr. Higgs gave a history of the zoning in that area from 1959 when the Hale Company submitted a zoning map--20 acres was zoned R-3 and the request for 10 acres for commercial was turned down '~until such time as the developer is able to establish the need." In 1961 they felt they could establish this need but the Commission cut down the 10 acre site to 6 acres. This acreage was sold to Mr. Sutter in 1965. Since that time, Mr. Sutter has tried unsuccessfully to get a major market interested in developing here; a letter from the Safeway store dated March 5, 1968 stated they felt it was premature to put in a store here at this time. Mr. Higgs then read the staff's comments to the Commission dated March 18, 1968 in which the staff opposed commercial zoning on the south side of Telegraph Canyon Road because of the traffic conflict caused by the interchange and having two small shopping centers across the street from each other, and also the need for all this commercial zoning. Mr. Higgs recognized the referral by the Council to the Commission of this matter for restudy. He declared that planning should not be for the financial or economic benefit of any one applicant--it should be for the good of the community as a whole. The Commission has to make certain findings for approval and these findings have to be based on fact. He added that they are willing to take a chance to have a full study made of this area--they would even be willing to contribute money toward this study. There is no urgency about it--they have been working with this property since 1961. Mr. Higgs requested that the matter be referred back to the staff and to have them determine what additional studies are needed and they will be glad to sit down and confer with the staff and the other owners, and also to contribute money to this cause. Mr. Gilbert Dreyfuss, 615 South Flower Street, Los Angeles, stated he was the owner of the property on the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road. He discussed the history of the rezoning that took place on this property since he acquired it in 1959. From the original 18 acres of commercial zoning which they proposed, they ended up with 6 acres. He sold the property to Mr. Sutter in 1965 retaining an option to repurchase this property. This is presently under litigation and they will be going to court on July 1 to determine whether or not he has the right to repurchase this property. He is not opposed to Mr. Wittman's proposed R-3 zoned property or even to the service station site at the corner. They are opposed to the C-1 zoned area for the proposed shopping center, as there will be two centers, one competing against the other, for which an adequate market does not exist. Mr. Dreyfuss then discussed Mr. Burford's report contending that this was not the kind of report on which the Commission could approve the Z-1 zone. He then elaborated upon -6- this statement. Mr. Burford states that they need l0 acres here for a shopping center site and that the center should start at the same time as the freeway opens. Mr. Dreyfuss stated he is willing to contribute money to a study which will determine whether or not there is a need to rezone his R-3 property to C-1. At present, there isn't enough demand so that the leading markets would want to develop here. Mr. Irving Sutter stated he is the owner of the C-N zoned area on the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road and discussed the numerous efforts he has made to try to develop the property. He presented this to as many as 15 major markets. He stated he is ready to go ahead with the development of this center; he owns and operates five shopping centers. He discussed the requirements of building a shopping center. He maintained that Mr. Wittman could not just construct a building and expect to get a lessee for it; that you cannot second-guess the needs of these people. He figures it will take another two years befome a shopping center could be established here. Mr. Sutter noteO the 80 homes re- cently built by Mr. Wittman in this area which would be approximately 320 people and cannot see their justification for more commercial zoning based on this increase in population. Mr. Cliff Burford, Planning Consultant of the firm of Planning Technology, 6151 Fairmount Street, San Diego, discussed criteria on which the need for shopping facilities is based. In his report he justified the need for a community shopping facility--not two shopping centers. Now it is up to the Commission to provide the area for such a shopping center. Mr. Burford then quoted the qualifications of his firm. He commented that Mr. Rainey, Traffic Engineer, was present tonight ready to testify that the major road is no more of a traffic hazard than Broadway and H. Mr. Burford further stated that if the consumer dollar is not invested in this location, it is just 6 minutes away to National City on the north and San Diego to the south. If this area is rezoned R-3, the commercial potential of this area is out of business for 50 years. Mr. Dennis Wittman stated they have worked this out closely with the California State Highway, and the design of this particular acreage is off of the off-ramp of the freeway. They have a certain specified distance which is 25 feet from the hinge point of the edge of the off-ramp. He anticipated that someone might say that they are infringing on the right-of-way of the freeway and he has a letter which he can make a part of this record from the right-of-way agent of the Highway stipulating that this is not the case and t~at they are conforming to the off-ramp situation and meeting what the State Highway desires. In his opinion, the property owners on the north side of this road are having a litigation problem and are stalling for time to settle this dispute. He has the money to go now and doesn't like to be stalled. As to the actual number of homes he built in this vicinity, he has llO0 going in this area. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. -7- The Commission discussed the staff's report indicating no justification for further commercial zoning at this time. Member York noted the past three sessions held on this matter and the statement by Mr. Sutter that he is not interested in additional commercial zoning at this time. Mr. York suggested the Commission reiterate their original recom- mendation to the Council. Mr. Sutter claimed he wanted his property, presently zoned C-N, changed to C-1 should the Commission grant the same to Mr. Wittman across the road. City Attorney Lindberg cautioned the Commission to take another look at this matter in terms of uniform application of rezoning. Member Gregson asked if the off-ramp is cutting into the 7.2 acre parcel owned by Mr. Wittman. Mr. Warren indicated that the submitted map reflects the resultant ownership. This shouldn't concern the Commission; if they zone part of the freeway one way or another, once it is built, just rezone it--it certainly does not give Mr. Wittman the right to develop that property. Mr. Wittman states that property, as presently designed, does not encroach upon the right-of-way. Member Hyde asked Mr. Warren if a more intensive study was needed for the area. Director Warren remarked that his original recommendation was that 6 acres was adequate for commercial zoning. Subsequent to that report, a workshop was conducted and Mr. Burford's report was considered, and the staff and Commission concluded that the area warranted more than the 6 acres. The freeway is going to have some effect on this. The question is how should this facility be property accommodated. The staff does not feel there is justification for 25 acres of commercial. The Commission discussed whether the area could support a community shopping center. Mr. Warren contended that there may be a need for 6 or 7 additional acres but not for 25 acres. The population will ultimately dictate the need for perhaps 13 to 15 acres total. The referral of this matter from the Council was for two things: the Commission could reconsider the recommendation of the staff or consider if additional commercial zoning should be granted, and if so, hold another public hearing. This also gives the Commission another opportunity to make the zoning consistent on both sides of the road. City Attorney Lindberg explained that the question came up at the Council hearing as to whether there is a need for further extension of commercial zoning in this area. It is recognized that the Commission will be making a report on the area so that the Council can act with finality on this request. -8- Member Hyde suggested the Commission change their original recommendation and take that of the staff: to rezone the 1/2 acre on the corner to C-N and the remainder of the property to C-3. Mr. Warren discussed his original recommendation to the Commission. Member H~de commented that they now recognize the need for a larger size center. The problem is that the property is split between two owners. The Commission then discussed the need for considering the traffic problem here, the element of good zoning practice, etc., for an adequate community center. Member York declared there was a need to provide commercial zoning for this area and Mr. Wittman stated he is ready to go ahead on this project. The area on the north side zoned C-N is not as desirable a location for a shopping center as this one is. Chairman Stewart commented that the testimonies given tonight did not bring out any facts that would justify their changing their minds. In spite of what was stated, he believes the 13~ acres is a conservative acreage for commercial for the area, now and for the future. He is not in favor of changing the original recommendation to the Council. MSC (Rice-Adams) Resolution of the City Planning Commission recommending RESOLUTION NO. 511 to City Council the change of zone for portions of property along both sides of Telegraph Canyon Road between the proposed Interstate 805 and a point 674 feet east of Oleander Avenue The motion passed by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Rice, Adams, York, and Stewart NOES: Members Hyde and Gregson ABSENT: Member Guyer Findings of fact are as follows: a. That the market analysis submitted by the applicant and studies by the staff reveal that the projected population of the area will support a community shopping center of from 10-15 acres. b. The General Plan is conservative in this area since development in the area is at a higher density than that projected in the Plan. c. That the conditions of traffic can be regulated to the extent that a division of this Center by Telegraph Canyon Road will not be of measurable concern. d. Rezoning to R-3 represents good zoning practice because of the relationship of the property to the topography and zoning pattern of the area. The proximity of this site to the freeway interchange will provide high-density development within easy driving range of many work centers. e. That no further commercial zoning be granted in the area unless a further detailed market analysis reveals the need. -9- PUBLIC HEARING - Rezonin§ - 370 K Street - R-1 and C-2 to R-3 L. Kuebler Director of Planning Warren stated this matter is back before the Commission because of being improperly advertised the first time. He pointed out that the Commission is primarily concerned with the land use--the rezoning of the property. The applicant's request is for R-3 zoning; the Commission's original recommenda- tion for this request was for R-3-D and the front setback to be set at 15 feet. The staff reiterates their recommendation to the Commission that this property be zoned R-3-D. City Attorney Lindberg requested that a member of the Commission move that the records of the previous meeting be attached and incorporated as part of this public hearing. This hearing is purely a technical matter dub to the failure of notifying certain property owners within 300 feet. Based upon statements made at the Council hearing, those property owners did have adequate notice; however, the Council felt it should be readvertised and these people given notice. MSUC (York-Rice) The records of the previous meeting be made a part of this hearing. City Attorney Lindberg then stated that it must be understood by all parties that the matter under discussion is strictly and solely of land use. The property is zoned C-2 and the applicant requests it be rezoned R-3. Mr. Lind- berg added that the site plan, the architecture of the building, the drainage and sewerage problems, the easement and transfer of property by adjacent parties--all of these matters are irrelevant to the hearing and should not be discussed tonight. The applicant will be bringing in his plans for Commission approval in the near future, and the Council has directed that the people in the area be notified when these plans are before the Commission. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Lawrence Kuebler, the applicant, stated he had nothing to add--that R-3 is the right direction for this area. It is the same zoning as that across the street. Speaking in opposition were: Richard Schott, 358 San Miguel Drive; Carolyn Stammer, 352 San Miguel Drive; Madalon Bagnall, 819 Fourth Avenue; Mrs. Robert Byerly, 357 San Miguel Road; Delia Kidd, 351 San Miguel Road; and Robert Kidd, 351 San Miguel Road. They stated as their objections: (1) Some of the property owners were not notified for the original hearing, but for tonight's hearing, they were all notified; (2) questioned the requirements of the "D" zone; (3) built home in this area 10 years ago (Mrs. Byerly) at which time the area was zoned R-l; it has since been rezoned to C-2 without their knwoledge; (4) the rezoning would not be in keeping with their properties to put all those buildings there; (5) it would be better to leave it commercial than to be overloaded with apartments; (6) purchased home here a few years ago (Kidd) because this area was zoned for commercial and they didn't want to have any apartments in back of their home; they have a swimming pool here and it would intrude on their privacy, especially if their buildings would be two-story; (7) 96 units as proposed is too much for the area--60 units of a more attractive design would be more in line; (8) they live in an area where they pay $500 and $600 taxes and this would devaluate their properties; (9) they want to see the plans for this construction; (10) they questioned the purpose of this hearing because they were not able to discuss all their objections. -10- Director Warren explained what could be done in an R-3 zone. The property encompasses 126,000 square feet, which in theory, could accommodate 126 apart- ments. The applicant must provide 1-1/2 parking spaces per unit offsite. The plans for the development will have to be approved by both the staff and Commission. Mr. Warren added that the uses that could be developed in a C-2 zone could be far more detrimental to these adjacent properties than a multiple- family development; it was for this reason that the staff recommended the R-3 zone. City Attorney Lindberg again explained what is and is not relevant to the issue. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Director Warren commented that this property was rezoned in 1959 to C-2, and at that time, according to the files, all of the property owners in the area were notified. The Commission discussed the fact that they are concerned with the welfare of the property owners in the area and cited the recent proposal of K-Mart as an example. They concurred that nothing has been changed or no new facts added that would warrant them changing their original recommendation to the Council. MSUC (Adams-Gregson) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending RESOLUTION NO. 512 to the City Council the Change of Zone for Property at 370 K Street from R-1 and C-2 to R-3-D. Findings be as follows: a. The attachment of the "D" zone will insure development which will protect the single-family area to the south. b. While the General Plan desi§nates the entire K Street frontage between Third and Fourth Avenues as medium density residential which corresponds with the R-1 zone, in making closer studies of individual areas of the City both the consultants and the staff have concluded that the General Plan and the zoning map should be altered to reflect a high density residential (R-3) classification to the area. c. The present non-conforming industrial uses and commercial and industrial zoning in the area are illogical and ill-suited to the surrounding neighborhood. These uses should eventually be relocated in proper areas and replaced with residential uses. d. The Commission previously approved a variance for multiple dwellings on an abutting westerly parcel. e. The Commission and Council recently approved the rezoning of the property across K Street from C-2 to R-3-D in recognition of points 1 and 2 above. -11- PUBLIC HEARING - Rezoning - Property at the northwest corner Second Avenue and Palomar Street R-1 to R-3-B-3 Aardema and Covin Director of Planning Warren referred to a letter received from the applicant requesting that this hearing be postponed to the meeting of May 27, 1968. MSUC (York-Gregson) This application be heard on May 27, 1968. PUBLIC HEARING - Variance - 670 Broadwas-669 East Manor Drive - Request for C-2 use on property zoned R-1 and reduction of sideward setback from 5' to 0 for a 6' high wall - William George The application was read in which the request was made to use the property at 669 East Manor Drive for commercial use--the property is now zoned R-1. Also, a request for a reduction in side yard setback from 15 feet to zero for the purpose of constructing a 6' high fence. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, adjacent land use and zoning. He explained that the staff and Commission have been exploring means of correcting situations such as this one and have not yet reached a satisfactory solution. This particular parcel is 60' wide and 132.5' deep, the easterly 60' of which is zoned C-2 while the remainder bears the R-1 classification. The applicant proposes to utilize 16 feet of the R-1 portion of his property for a liquor store while the remainder of the C-2_zoned property would be used for access and parking. One end of this building would be located on the side property line for which a reduction in setback is being requested. Mr. Warren noted that the applicant is eliminating some of the potential of this property by developing it in this manner. The staff recommends approval of granting the applicant the 16 feet utilization of the residential portion of his property and the reduction in side yard for the building. Mr. Warren then reviewed the conditions of approval as suggested by the staff. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. J. Fuller, 659 East Manor Drive, stated he was opposed to this "piecemeal" zoning. He felt it should be the same as the other presently existing businesses. Mr. Everett Lamp, 695 J Esplande Drive, wanted assurance that there will be no loading or unloading done from the back of this building which will be on the residential portion. Chairman Stewart assured him that the delivery trucks would not be going back there, but that this could be made a condition. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Hyde declared that the opening in the block wall should be limited in size to pedestrian traffic and not vehicular. MSUC (Adams-Hyde) Approval of request to utilize 16 feet of the R-1 segment of the property for commercial use, subject to the following conditions: -12- 1. The parkway area on Broadway shall be filled with concrete with the exception of a tree well in which a street tree (6' minimum height) shall be planted. 2. No access to the remaining R-1 portion of the property shall be permitted and said portion shall be screened by a block wall as shown on the plan submitted by the applicant. There will be no opening in this block wall for vehicular traffic; it will be limited in size to pedestrian traffic only. No deliveries shall be made from the East Manor Drive frontage. 3. An enclosed trash area shall be located on the north side of the building. Findings be as follows: a. The shallow depth (60') of the commercial zoning along this segment of Broadway does not provide sufficient depth for good commercial development. b. Since a rezoning and ordinance amendment, which would regulate such situations, were not satisfactory solutions of the problem, a variance is the only immediate solution to the problem. c. The design of the proposed building and the location of the improvements on adjoining parcels in relation to the proposed location of the building would preclude any apparent detrimental effect on the area. d. The General Plan advocates sound commercial development with adequate commercially zoned property to accomplish this goal. PUBLIC HEARING - Variance - Property on the east side of Woodlawn Avenue, 300 feet south of E Street - Request for R-3 use in a C-2 zone - County Properties, Inc. The application was read in which a request was made for permission to construct an apartment complex on property on Woodlawn Avenue between E and F Streets. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, adjacent land use and zoning. The applicant has submitted a plan proposing to construct 131 apartment units on the property and is requesting this variance for reasons of expediency. If the Commission approved this variance, the staff would recommend the area be set for hearing for rezoning to R-3. The General Plan acknowledges the need for changing some of the land use in the area. It must be recognized that the General Plan does not define property lines as such but does define the need. Mr. Warren then delineated the conditions of approval. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Mitch Angus, the applicant, stated the conditions are acceptable. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. MSUC (Rice-Gregson) Approval of variance request subject to the following conditions: -13- 1. That a landscape and irrigation plan, together with detailed building plans including elevations shall be submitted for approval at a later date. (All proposed signing shall be included.) 2. A paved driveway 30 feet wide, which would extend 15 feet beyond the north property line shall be constructed simultaneously with the apartment project or before. 3. A minimum of 15 spaces shall be designated on-site for guest parking. 4. A minimum of five trash enclosure areas shall be provided to accommodate the standard trash containers used by the sanitary service (8' wide X 5' in depth X 4' high). 5. The proposed parkway area along Woodlawn Avenue shall be filled with concrete and a minimum of three street trees (6' high, minimum) shall be provided. Findings be as follows: a. The present zoning regulations do not permit apartment development in commercial zones. b. The applicant desires to develop the property for residential use similar to the existing developments directly south of this site. This cannot be accomplished unless the variance is granted or the property rezoned. c. The intended use is similar to the adjoining property to the south and is compatible with the motel uses on both sides. d. The General Plan indicated thoroughfare commercial and high density for this area in general, with the understanding that zone boundaries would be adjusted depending upon the uses projected for the area. MSUC (Rice-Gregson) Public hearing be set for June 3, 1968 to consider rezoning this property from C-2 to R-3. PUBLIC HEARING - Variance - 355 K Street - Request for reduction of rear .yard setback from 15' to 2' - Jack Mestler T~e application was read in which a request was made for a reduction of rear yard setback from 15 feet to 2 feet for the purpose of constructing a storage building. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, zoning, and adjacent land use. The storage building will be 17' X 28' constructed of concrete block. Mr. Warren explained the need for the variance and the require- ments of the ordinance stipulating a 6' separation between the main building and an accessory building located in the rear of the property. He then reviewed the staff's recommendations for conditions of approval of a variance to 3' instead of 2'. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. -14- Mrs. Jack Mestler, the applicant, stated they agree to the conditions being imposed and would answer any questions the Commission may have. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member York suggested the wording of the third condition be changed from "from this location" to "in this location." MSUC (York-Gregson) Approval of request subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed structure shall be located 3 feet from the north property line and 5 feet from the west property line. 2. The storage building shall not exceed one story in height (ll' maximum). 3. The building shall be used for storage only--no equipment is to be operated in this location. Findings be as follows: a. The proposed addition will be completely enclosed and constructed of block, making the normal separation between main buildings and accessory structures unnecessary. b. The property abuts an existing side yard, making a 15 ft. rear setback inappropriate for this commercial development. c. All storage will be conducted inside an enclosed building. d. The General Plan will not be affected. PUBLIC HEARING - Variance - 1339 Tobias Street - Request for reduction of side yard setback from 5' to 3' - Chuck May T~e application was read in which a request was made for a reduction in side yard setback from 5 feet to 3 feet for the purpose of connecting the existing two-car garage to the dwelling with a 12' X 16' enclosure. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location and the proposed construction. He explained that the ordinance has been revised to allow 3' side yards for detached structures when located 70' or more from the front property line. The staff would recommend approval of this request and feels that this generates the need for a change in the ordinance. The ordinance should be changed to permit these connections as long as the 5' setback is maintained by the new addition. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Chuck May, the contractor for this ~roject and applicant, stated that the ordinance is working an unnecessary hardship on these property owners. He suggested a blanket policy to cover all the homes in this area so that they would not require a variance to do this. -15- There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission discussed this matter and concurred that it would not be detrimental to the area to grant this variance. They also directed the City Attorney to recommend an ordinance change that would incorporate the change as suggested by the Director of Planning. MSUC (Rice-Gregson) Approval of the variance request. Findings be as follows: a. Under the present non-conforming section of the zoning ordinance it is not possible to expand the houses with a detached garage 3 feet from the side property line without the variance. b. The garages were legally constructed 3 feet from the side properly line and any connection to the main building can only be accomplished by a zone variance. c, The proposed connection will enhance the use of the property and the addition will maintain the 5 foot setback which exists for the main structure, d. The General Plan will not be affected. Board of Zonin§ Appeals Director Warren commented on the long agendas and the need for many of the people to wait a couple of hours before their request is heard. City Attorney Lindberg felt this was a good opportunity to move ahead and have a Board of Zoning Appeals, because technical variances take up most of the Commission's time. Director Warren remarked that he would first want to explore this, since he worked in a city once that did have this Board and he could never understand its function when related to the Planning Commission. Chairman Stewart asked that this matter be discussed at a workshop meeting. ReQuest for approval of house plans - 3609 Bonita Verde Drive ("D" zone) Director of Planning Warren explained that this was a routine Commission item required under the provisions of the supplemental "D" zone. The proposed home will be constructed at 3609 Bonita Verde Drive, containing 1800 square feet with a 483 square foot garage plus a 783 square foot covered terrace and garden area, The staff recommends approval since this home will be compatible with those in the area. MSUC (Hyde-Gregson) Approval of plans for home at 3609 Bonita Verde Drive as submitted. Discussion - Proposed renaming of segment of Theresa Way Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the three segments of Theresa Way in the City. Both the Fire and police Department have recommended that this confusion be rectified by the renaming of one of the street segments. The staff would suggest the meeting of May 27. iqSUC (York-Hyde) Public hearing be set for May 27, 1968 to consider renaming a segment of Theresa Way. Request for extension of time - Variance - Northeast corner Third Avenue and C Street R. Higgins Director of Planning Warren briefly explained the request. The variance was granted for a density of one unit per 1500 square feet of land for the construc- tion of apartment units. MSUC (York-Hyde) Extension be granted for one year to May 6, 1969. Request for extension of time - Conditional Use Permit - Woodlawn Avenue and E Street - Car wash - County Properties~ Inc. Director of Planning Warren stated the original variance was granted on October 23, 1967 for the construction of a car wash in a C-2 zone. MSUC (York-Adams) Approval of an extension for one year; subject permit will not expire May 7, 1969. Request for extension of time - Variance - Mobile Offices - Rohr Corporation Director of Planning Warren explained the original variance was granted on May 2, 1966 for the location of 25 trailers within the Rohr complex to be used as offices. MSUC (York-Hyde) Approval of a two year extension of time; subject permit will expire on May 12, 1970. Member Rice abstained from voting on this matter. Resolution regarding State Highway Commission on planninq highways through parks Director of Planning Warren explained this resolution was referred to the Commission by the Council so that the Commission would be aware of the attempt being made not to construct highways through any parks. MSUC (York-Hyde) The Resolution was duly noted by the Commission and filed. -17- Memo from City Attorney regarding Underground Utilities to be set for hearing: May 20, 1968 Director of Planning Warren referred to the City Attorney's memo to the Commission concerning an ordinance setting forth requirements for the under- grounding of utilities. City Attorney Lindberg briefly explained the proposed ordinance adding that there is a time limit set on it. It should go back to the Council for their meeting of June 4 and he would suggest the Commission consider this at their public hearong of May 20. MSUC (Rice-Adams) Public hearing on this matter be set for May 20, 1968. County Planning Commission Meeting on Telegraph Canyon Road Chairman Stewart discussed the meeting to be held on May 17, 1968 before the County Planning Commission in regard to zoning that portion of Telegraph Canyon Road lying westerly of Southwestern College (9-1/2 miles). He urged some of the members to attend, if possible. Member York felt he could go as representing the Chamber of Commerce. The other members of the Commission asked for a copy of the letter. Sweetwater Valley Meeting Director of Planning Warren commented that he will be one of the speakers, along with the Mayor and Councilman Sylvester, at a town meeting called by the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association to be held at the Allen School in Bonita at 8 p.m. on May 9, 1958. He stated that any of the Commissioners wishing to attend are welcome to do so. The discussion will be on prezoning planning for the Valley. Workshop Meeting Director Warren indicated the Commission could have a dinner workshop meeting this month, as requested some time ago. Since all Mondays are now taken up with public hearings, he would suggest Wednesday or ThurSday night (15th or 16th) of the following week. Member Hyde stated he would not be able to attend a Wednesday workshop meeting. Member Adams commented that he will be leaving for his vacation on the 15th. Director Warren said he would set up the meeting and notify the Commission. -18- May 27, 1968 Meeting (Rice-Hyde) A third regular public hearing be set up this month for May 27, 1968. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Rice-Adams) Meeting be adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. The next meeting will be on May 13, 1968 at which time the Commission will consider the commercial and industrial sections, plus miscellaneous sections of the new proposed comprehensive zoning ordinance. Respectfully submitted, /x~'dennie M. Fulasz /c~ Secretary