Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1968/01/15 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA January 15, 1968 The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission was held at 7 p.m. on the above date in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Guava Avenue, Chula Vista, California, with the following members pre- sent: Stewart, York, Hyde, Gregson, Rice, Adams, and Guyer. Absent: None. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, Junior Planner Masciarelli, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. STATEMENT The Secretary hereby states that she did post within 24 hours as re- quired by law, the order for the adjourned meeting of January 3, 1968. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Stewart asked that the motion on page 10 in regard to Diver- sified Enterprises be corrected to show that he did not make the motion. Instead of MSUC Stewart-Rice, the correction will show MSUC Rice-Guyer. MSUC (Guyer-Adams) Minutes of the meeting of January 3, 1968, be ap- proved, as corrected. PUBLIC tIEARING: VARIANCE - Doctors' Park 340 Fourth Avenue - Setback Reduction and height increase for signs The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction in front yard setback from 20' to 10' and an increase in sign area from 20 square feet to 47 square feet (total) for the purpose of erecting two directory signs. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the Park, the location of the proposed signs, the adjacent land use and zoning. Since a setback for the building has been reduced to 15', it would be unreasonable to assume that the proposed signs be placed 5' behind the setback of the building. Therefore, the staff recommends approval, subject to the condition that the signs proposed be flush against the low block wall located at the 15' setback line of the building. Mr. Warren discussed the problems of ingress and egress into this Park and the problems of locating the signs as proposed by the applicant. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. -2- Mr. Peter Montgomery, representing the Doctors' Park, questioned the condition being imposed. Mr. Warren clarified the condition, and Mr. Montgomery stated it is acceptable. There being no further corament, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission discussed the square footage of the proposed signs and the height of the signs - 7'. MSUC (York-Gregson)Approval of variance for two 23 square foot signs located 5' into the required 20' setback, subject to the following con- dition: Such signs shall be flush against the low block wall located at the 15' setback line of the building. Findings be as follows: a. That the strict application of the zoning regulations or require- ments would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the regulations. Size: While the 20 square foot limitation is adequate for resi- dential uses in the R-1 zone, an office use of this magnitude and frontage must have sufficient directional signing for the conven- ience of the facility's patrons. Setback: The setback of the building has already been reduced to 15' It would be unreasonable to require that the signs be placed 5' behind the setback of the building. b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone or neighborhood. Size: Because the property has 331' of frontage and the building has two widely-spaced wings, it is necessary to have two directory signs at a size large enough to be easily read (one at each wing). Setback: The only logical place to locate the signs is at the 15' building line since walls and parking areas exist beyond this point. c. That the granting of a variance will nSbe materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located. Size: The unusually large frontage on the property would tend to minimize the effect of the two signs proposed. This parcel could have been severed into six lots, each of which could have had 20 square feet of sign area. -3- Setback: No detriment is evident since the buildings are already set back at 15' d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objec- tives of the General Plan. The General Plan will not be affected by this proposal. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Church of Latter Day Saints Fordham Street and Otay Lakes Road (in Southwestern College Estates) - Church buildings The application was read in which a request was made to construct a church or other buildings suitable for religious worship, education, and recreational purposes on an irregularly-shaped parcel located north of Elmhurst Street and extending northerly to the proposed H Street extension and having frontage on the east side of Otay Lakes Road and extending east for approximately 660' Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the proposed location and adjacent zoning and land use. He noted that the property involved comprises 6.4 gross acres of land and is zoned R-1. He dis- cussed the resolution adopted by the City Council that places the alignment of H Street in this location indicating that, although no specific plans have been prepared, the Commission can assume that this will be the location of the intersection. The acreage is more than adequate for a church building and student center. They will have 348 seats and their plans show 130 parking spaces for the church with more parking provided for the educational facility. Director Warren then discussed the resultant parcel that would occur if this lot split is approved - there would be an irregular shaped parcel (4.2 acres) at the corner fronting on two thoroughfares. The zoning on this parcel would remain R-l; however, it is unlikely that single-family homes would be developed here. This was discussed with the applicant and the owners and the prospect of this property being developed commer- cially. The staff explained to them that we could not support this apparent move to create more commercial zoning in this area. Mr. Warren then noted a blow-up of the applicant's plan stating that the plan was schematic and not necessarily the one to be developed. Gen- erally, he added, the staff finds that such a location for a church site is acceptable - that the site is more than adequate and, there- fore, recommend that, if the Commission wishes to approve the request, they consider these recommendations(which Mr. Warren delineated). Member Gregson questioned the development plans for the five lots east of this site which is part of the church property. Mr. Warren indi- cated the applicant should answer this. -4- This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Langlois Reed, 62 East Palomar Drive, representing the church, stated for the record that the name of the church is "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints". They are requesting approval of the con- ditional use permit before completing the purchase of the land. Mr. Reed spoke of the growth in population in the area and the need for more land than is presently anticipated. They favor this particular location because the Institute of Religion will be used by the stu- dents attending Southwestern College. Member Adams asked why the church didn't consider the triangular shaped parcel on the corner. Mr. Reed answered that the primary reason would be that they don't want the church out where there is a lot of traffic, since there will be numerous children attending the services. Also, it is much better to build a church on the rise of a hill instead of down by the road - this would not only be more pleasing but would discourage vandalism by the high school students, etc. Member Hyde asked if the corner lot was offered to them. Mr. Reed declared it was not offered but that they might be able to buy this whole piece and, if so, they would have to sell some off. Mr. Ralph Cockrell, 1012 West 36th Street, Los Angeles, representing the Institute of Religion, discussed the aspects of setting up such an establishment. The courses offered will be oriented to the college level. The Institutes are located throughout the United States, and it is important to have them as close to a college as possible since the classes will coincide with those offered by the college - the stu- dents will be able to cross the street to take some classes and then back to the college for their other classes. They will also have social programs for the students. The Institute will be open every day main- taining the same hours as the college and also one or two nights a week. Mr. David Kelton, 5109 Waring Road, San Diego, attorney for Allied Contractors, Inc., owners of the parcel in question and also the parcel on the corner which will be created as a result of approval of the re- quest. In answer to the Commission's inquiries, Mr. Kelton declared that at the time they acquired this property, the H Street extension was not projected in this location. They acquired the property in 1960 and subsequent to that, H Street was realigned. As to the proposal that they could exchange properties with the church and the existing C-N property south of this area, Mr. Kelton stated he has a one-half interest (his brother having the other half interest) in the C-N zoned property. They have one firm lease and several commitments for the commercial site. They do not have a personal interest in the northerly parcel, and have no definite plans at present to develop this commer- cially. Perhaps, in 10 or 15 years, if the need shows there should be more commercial in the area, they will then formulate plans. They feel the church will be adequately served with the parcel of land they now wish to buy. -5- Mr. Kelton indicated that, after talking with the Director of Planning, he received the impression that they have to decide now what they in- tend to do with the corner property. This is impossible because it was only 6 months ago that they were informed that H Street was re- aligned. The Commission discussed further the possibility of exchanging the present commercial site for this northerly parcel. Mr. Kelton felt it would raise some intricate tax problems, plus the cost of improving the site. In essence, he declared, H Street was really "given" to them - they didn't ask for it. The Commission discussed the H Street alignment and the C-2 zoning across the street. Director Warren noted that the new alignment was fixed one year ago and they had not earlier anticipated that it would pass through Bollenbacher & Kelton's property. The owners of the C-2 property to the west hoped, at the time of their requested zone change, that H Street would pass through their property. The Commission, at that time, told these applicants that they were not certain as to where the H Street alignment would go. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member York thanked Mr. Kelton for taking part in the Commission's discussion, stating that it was not pertinent to the application. He added that he cannot understand why the owners are even selling this site to the church instead of keeping the whole site for potential commercial for the future. Mr. York advocated that it was not the business of the Commission to tell a property owner what property he should develop or what he should trade, etc. Member Rice commented that there is already C-N and C-2 zoned property in the area, and it is not feasible to consider other sections for com- mercial centers for this area. Mr. Rice felt the H Street extension here would be destroyed with commercial development. Member Gregson maintained that all this information was good for the Commission to know. He then questioned the two proposed driveways coming in off of H Street. Mr. Warren remarked that the staff has another plan on file that has no access to H Street. He added that detailed plans should be submitted to the Traffic Engineer before approval. Mr. Warren then discussed the northerly corner parcel which would result if the request was approved. He said the staff introduced this into the hearing, and on the surface, it doesn't seem pertinent; however, when the Commission is dealing with a proposed plan for development of what is essentially raw land, they have to consider the development beyond the confines of that par- ticular property involved. By approving this conditional use permit, -6- you are essentially creating a 4.2 acre potential commercial corner. The Commission should not now assume that commercial will take place here, and should not ask for an exchange of zoning. The Commission will have to determine whether or not this is an appropriate conditional use permit. The staff felt it was necessary to delineate the poten- tial problems. Member Rice agreed, adding it was part of their job to see what the consequences would be if they granted the conditional use permit to the property adjacent to it. Member York alleged that the consideration of whether or not the Com- mission creates an island here is proper or improper - this certainly should be a consideration of whether they deny or approve this con- ditional use permit for the property in question. What is improper is to try to dictate to the owner what he should or should not do with that corner property. Member Rice discussed another Planning Commission hearing in which they recommended that the property owners in the area get together and try to develop their properties jointly. Member Hyde felt that if the Commission approved the conditional use permit as shown, they should consider the fact that they are going down one step toward setting up this northerly parcel as commercial for that corner. Chairman Stewart agreed, adding it could also be some less restrictive use than R-1. He added that the Commission, in no way, attempted to dictate to the owner of the property what to do with it. Member Adams commented that the corner site would be very suitable for a multiple-family development; however, in time, the owners would feel that property would be too valuable for any R-3 development. Member Hyde questioned whether it would be proper for the Commission to refuse what seems to be a very reasonable request for a church site because of the fact that it would create a triangle-shaped parcel which, as Mr. Kelton admits, will be prime property for commercial use. He asked if they could use this finding as grounds for turning down this request. Director Warren maintained that it would be improper to deny the condi- tional use permit unless they found that the creation of this island would serve as a detriment to the development in the area. However, it may not, but this is something the Commission should be aware of. They should realize that, as presently zoned, it is improperly zoned once the conditional use permit is granted or, at least, until con- struction begins. -7- Member Guyer asked if the Commission could initiate rezoning the cor- ner in question. Director Warren indicated they could with a public hearing. Member Adams declared this would not be a solution because the owners will just come in someday and request commercial zoning for that cor- ner. Member York advocated it was premature to rezone it until such time as the owners are ready for development. He added that if H Street is intersecting there, the property will certainly be a prime area for commercial zoning. Mr. York then discussed Mr. Rice's comments about commercial extending down to H Street and said this may be true. He does, however, take exception of the Commission's apparent attitude toward commercial zoning here. He reminded the Commission that no precise alignment is established and this could very well be changed. Member Rice explained his comments about the possibility of over- commercializing the area, noting the land use presently existing. He added there was nothing wrong with commercial zoning in the proper place. Member York remarked that if the conditional use permit were denied and the sale fell through and H Street extension was put through as proposed, if he were the owner of the land, he would do nothing more with the property until such time as the highest and best use for it was determined. He felt the granting or denying of this request would not in any way affect the development of that area. Member Adams declared that the request for this land for a church site is poor planning. It is not in the best interests of the community. The commercial zoning that would go in on that corner would be a de- cided advantage to the property owner, but again, not in the best interests of the City or planning for the community. MSC (Adams-Hyde) Request for church site be disapproved based on the finding that the configuration of the church site would create a par- cel at the intersection of Otay Lakes Road and the proposed tt Street extension for which no use has been prescribed and would be difficult to develop in a manner which would be in the best interests of the community. It appears that there would be a better site for the church development in this area. The motion carried by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Members Adams, Hyde, Gregson, and Stewart NOES: Members Guyer, York, and Rice ABSENT: None -8- Chairman Stewart informed the applicants they have the right to appeal within 10 days. Member Guyer suggested a staff study be made of the area taking into consideration the H Street extension. Director Warren explained that the staff did not mean to imply that commercial zoning would not ultimately be appropriate for this area - they merely wished to point out what could occur. He added that a study of the area would be appropriate. Member Adams felt it made little difference where the church was lo- cated since the students would be driving to the area. Member Hyde explained that he did not vote against the church at all but rather to the planning considerations involved. Chairman Stewart and Member Guyer stated this was true of their vote also. Request for approval of development plans - Ed Maloney - Partridge Annexation A letter was read from Mr. Ed Maloney, realtor, requesting the fol- lowing: (1) Create a single lot at the easterly terminus of Casa Mesita. This lot to connect to the utilities in Calle Mesita. (2) Create three lots on the lower level having as an access the present easement to Palm. These lots would not have a sewer available to them but neither do all the homes in that area which is in the County. (3) Another problem that presents itself in developing these three lots would be the street improvements required. The easement to Palm is not paved and is in the County. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan of the area with the topography shown. He explained that the property was annexed in 1965. Mr. Warren discussed the topography of the Bonita Bel Aire Subdivision stating this was changed to accommodate a map. At the time Partridge asked for annexation, he requested that the City give him access from Calle Mesita and also to the sewer, which was basi- cally the reason he annexed to the City. Both the Commission and the Council agreed that the 1' lot would be dedicated for street purposes subject to these conditions: (1) That sewer be extended through to the southerly property line of Partridge's property~ location and size of sewer to be determined by the City Engineer. -9- (2) That a minimum of a 35' right-of-way be reserved through the cen- ter of Partridge's property running north to south for future street purposes, the location and precise right-of-way width to be determined by the City Engineer and the Director of Planning. (3) A lien, bond, or cash deposit in the amount to be determined by the City Engineer shall be provided to insure completion of improvements, and that installation of the required improvements will commence within 30 days following written notice by the City Engineer. None of these conditions transpired because the area was not annexed. The question before the Commission is whether or not the one-foot lot should be dedicated, and if so, with what recommended conditions. The Commission must consider the ramifications of this. Mr. Warren discussed the topography noting the slope was 37%. He commented that it was difficult to second-guess the development such as this. It is the opinion of the staff that the stub street serves no purpose and would recommend that the 1 foot lot be dedicated subject to the posting of a bond, lien or cash deposit as determined by the City Engineer to insure completion of the improvements and the possible reservation of an easement for street purposes through the Partridge property. Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, discussed a few possible ways in which this property could be developed with the extension of Calle Mesita. The access could come from the south and then cul-de- sac and still have the sewer come through the Partridge property - the disadvantage of this plan would be the long entrance to the site, with the problems of fire control, etc. Another plan would be the extension of Camino del Cerro Grande around to this property. This disadvantage to this plan would be you would have to go downhill and then make a sharp turn and then drive up hill to the lot - this would be expensive. Another plan would be to come up from the road para- llel to Palm Avenue - its disadvantage would be that it too would be quite expensive. The most economical plan would be an extension of Calle Mesita. The Commission discussed the proposed development of the site. Di- rector Warren explained that the applicant does not want to be bound by the original conditions. How he proposed to develop the easterly lots would have to be the subject of a variance. The question here is whether he can have access from the end of Calle Mesita and whether he should adhere to the previous conditions. If approved, the Com- mission should reiterate these conditions in their approval or change them accordingly. This matter would be a recommendation to the City Council. -10- Mr. Ed Maloney, realtor, 845 Highland Avenue, speaking in behalf of the owner, stated that the area south of this property and that to the north is under the ownership of the same corporation - Ashton Corporation. Subject property was offered to the Corporation by the owner for exactly the money he had in it, but they did not want it. Mr. Maloney discussed the proposal of putting a road through the mid- dle of the site and said he doubted the wisdom of this. He felt it would destroy the lot, as the owner has plans for its development other than that proposed originally by Mr. Partridge. All he is asking for now is for now is for access off Calle Mesita to serve one or two lots, depending upon what the engineer can work out. Chairman Stewart asked if there was a possibility of landlocking the easterly one-half of the site. Mr. Maloney indicated that those two lots can only be served by the street at the end of Palm Avenue. In order to develop these lots, they realize they would have to apply for a variance. Member York discussed approving the request and creating these land- locked properties. City Attorney Lindberg stated the Commission is now land-locking any properties because they are already landlocked. Member York remarked that they are already landlocked at the discre- tion of the City by not granting the dedication of this 1' lot at the end of Calle Mesita. Mr. Lindberg indicated this is true of that portion of the property to the east that would have to be served from Acacia Street or there- abouts. What they are discussing today, however, is whether they are going to give access to this entire property in question. Director Warren clarified this, stating the only determination to be made is whether Calle Mesita is going to be extended through this property. Director Warren then questioned Mr. Maloney as to the fact that he doesn't want to be obligated for extending a street or reserving right for a street, and that he does not desire to extend sewer to the southerly property line. Mr. Maloney stated this was true, since the Ashton Corporation stated they could care less. Member York asked if there was any reason for imposing the extension of the sewer as opposed to only granting a sewer easement across to the southerly property line. The sewer extends to the lot he pro- poses to develop - that would seem to be his obligation, plus getting access to that sewer from surrounding property, as opposed to physi- cally putting the sewer in and bonding for it. -11- Director Warren felt this would have to be a determination by the Commission and the Council as to what would be equitable. They should keep in mind that if this were a subdivision, they would have to carry the sewer on through to the adjacent property. In this case, the subdividers of Bonita Bel Aire have extended sewer down to the stub street of Calle Mesita, although they don't use that sewer. Perhaps, it will be determined that this is inequitable and he should only reserve the right-of-way. Member York felt it did appear to be inequitable to require him to extend the sewer, considering the amount of property being developed. He added that the City would be protected if they had an easement there in the event that the surrounding properties did wish to tie into this sewer, the access would be available. Mr. M. Schachter, 637 Valamanda Drive, San Diego, the owner of sub- ject property, further discussed the proposal. He reiterated that they want to be granted the same thing as the former owner with the exception of the sewer line - they prefer to give an easement just in case the adjoining property owners change their minds and change the development plans for their property. The Commission again discussed the sewer easement and Member Rice asked who would be liable to pay for the continuation of the sewer in the event the owner only put the sewer in part way down and granted a right-of-way. City Attorney Lindberg stated it would be the person who would be developing the adjacent property. Mr. Lindberg added that the point being raised here is whether or not this sewer will, at some time in the future, be actually serving the surrounding properties. There is a greater contingency factor here than there is with a normal street frontage. Member York reiterated the request - access off Calle Mesita for the one lot and sewer for the one lot, and that the owner would grant an easement across the balance of his property so that sewer would be acceptable to someone developing the adjacent property. Also, in the event the owner develops the balance of the property, he would gain access from Acacia or Palm. Mr. Schac~ter stated this was correct. He again discussed possible ingress and egress for the development of the adjacent property. The Commission, the City Attorney and Assistant City Engineer dis- cussed the problems of providing sewer to the Partridge property. Director Warren declared that the Commission doesn't have to make this determination. The property is still under one ownership. He would have to make this provision himself and extend access into his own property. The street would have to be finished off in some manner - it doesn't seem likely that the City would require an extended cul- de-sac; however, they would require that the street be finished in some acceptable manner. -12- Member Hyde asked about the possible postponement of this matter for one or two weeks for further consideration. Director Warren felt nothing would be accomplished by this. MSUC (York-Guyer) Recommend to the City Council the approval of the 1' lot at the end of Calle Mesita to be dedicated for street pur- poses subject to certain conditions that follow: 1. That sewer be extended through to the southerly property line of Partridge's property; location and size of sewer to be determined by the City Engineer. 2. That a minimum of a 35' right-of-way be reserved through the cen- ter of Partridge's property running north to south for future street purposes, the location and precise right-of-way width to be determined by the City Engineer and the Director of Planning. 3. A lien, bond, or cash deposit in the amount to be determined by the City Engineer shall be provided to insure completion of im- provements, and that installation of the required improvements will commence within 30 days following written notice by the City Engineer. (The following motion was made before action was taken on the previous motion). MS (Hyde-Rice) Continuation of this matter for a period of two to four weeks. During this time, the Planning Director and the City Engineer study this situation and contact the owner to the south. Thereafter, they should send their recommendations to the Planning Commission for further consideration. The motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: Members Hyde and Rice NOES: Members Gregson, Stewart, /R~e, Adams and York ABSENT: None (The Commission then voted on the previous motion which was passed unanimously). Request for extension of time - Variance for property at 238 Davidson Street - T. Haynes Director of Planning Warren reviewed the request for an extension of time. This variance was approved on Septem~r 6, 1967, for a reduc- tion in rear setback from 15' to 5' on a portion of the property lo- cated at 238 Davidson Street for the construction of a 5-unit multiple family building. The staff recommends approval of a 6 month period of time. MSUC (Rice-Gregson) Approval of an extension of 6 months; subject variance will now expire on September 6, 1968. -13- Discussion - Zoning for unincorporated area along Telegraph Canyon Road Director of Planning Warren stated this matter was brought up at the last Commission workshop, and it was the concensus of opinion that the matter should be pursued. The letter received from the San Diego County Planning Commission indicated that they tried to initiate some interest in rezoning this area, and held public meetings for such but the attendance was quite low. It is the policy of the County not to undertake any planning and zoning studies in areas where there is no evidence of substantial community support; therefore, they are taking no further action on this matter. Mr. Warren discussed certain areas in the city or nearby where one can see the problems of either no zoning or improper zoning. He asked the Commission for formal indication from them as to what course they wished to pursue. One suggestion is to recommend that the City Council urge the Board of Supervisors to initiate a zoning study of this area. Member Adams recommended that this be done. He further urged that the Council take this up with the Supervisor for this area. He added that even if it was zoned "A" (agriculture) it would be a step in the right direction. Director Warren indicated another point was made whereby it shouldn't be rezoned without a plan. He remarked that they are not suggesting that the ultimate zoning be established for this road, but that per- haps the "A" zone could be placed on it until such time as they know what they want to do with it. City Attorney Lindberg discussed the laws of prezoning noting that they have been greatly expanded - the State in modifying the State Planning Act is encouraging prezoning to the extent that the City can make firm plans for an area regardless of the distance from that city. Chairman Stewart felt they should recommend to the City Council to urge this prezoning - the reason would be our interest in it, since it will eventually be annexed to Chula Vista and some control should be exercised in the interim. City Attorney Lindberg commented on the subject of prezoning the area - he felt the Commission should be hesitant to establish prezoning of what could be interim zoning and not the best zoning for the fore- seeable future, merely because they want it zoned. MSUC (Guyer-Rice) Recommend to the City Council that they request some action on this matter. Member Adams remarked that it should be stated that our planning staff would cooperate with the plans for this prezoning. He added that he favors R-1 zoning. -14- Director Warren indicated that the staff is not prepared to make specific zoning recommendations now - he is not sure they want to en- courage R-1 development out there. "A" zoning would have the least effect on anyone. Member Hyde suggested that the staff prepare a letter to the City Council and then have them send this to the Board of Supervisors. Director Warren stated the staff will draft a letter, if it is the desire of the Commisison, and the Cormmission can review it at the workshop meeting (January 22), or the next regular meeting. Chairman Stewart stated the matter will be held in abeyance until such a letter is drafted to the City Council. Nomination of Director and alternate to San Diego County Planning Congress The Commission discussed the possible nominations and made the follow- ing motions: MSUC (Adams-Guyer) Member Rice be elected the Director. MSUC (Hyde-York) Member Gregson be nominated for the Alternate. To be set for hearing - Amendment to Zoning Ordinance - Section 33.85, "Failure to Utilize a Conditional Use Permit or Vari- ance and Extension of Time" City Attorney Lindberg indicated this was his suggestion - that the Commission consider the change from the present 6 month time limita- tion for the utilization of a variance and conditional use permit. There are many circumstances whereby an applicant is before the Plan- ning Commission fully aware that he cannot get his project done in six months. The Commission should, at that time, extend the time the applicant can make use of that permit. Mr. Lindberg declared he will submit two alternate ordinances: one for 1 year or longer, and the other for 6 months subject to certain conditions. Director Warren commented that in the discussions of the new ordinance, it was decided that 6 months was unreasonable and that they should change it to one year. MSUC (Guyer-Gregson) Public hearing be set for February 5, 1968, for this matter. -15- League of California Cities Dinner Meeting Members that wished to have reservations made were Guyer, Adams and Gregson. Sweetwater Valley Zoning Study Director of Planning Warren stated that on November 28, 1967, the City Council asked that a prezoning study be made of the Sweetwater Valley area. The Mayor has set a date for the first week of Feb- ruary for he and the Director to meet with representatives of the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association to discuss this subject. The Council's action was not to limit the discussions with the Civic Association but with representatives of the Valley as a whole. Mr. Warren asked the Commission if they preferred to wait, before taking any action, until after he and the Mayor hold this meeting. Chairman Stewart felt this was a good suggestion as the Civic Associa- tion may have some suggestions to make for a public hearing. Member Hyde discussed the new subdivisions going in near the edge of the City that are provided with services of the County. They are continually competing with the services of the City. He felt that continuing this would jeopardize the growth of the C~ty. Mr. Hyde added this would be a good subject for a workshop meeting - whether or not any legal aspects are involved here. City Attorney Lindberg stated this could be discussed but it should be recognized that this is not something that the City Council is un- aware of, or views with any pleasure. The unfortunate thing is that several of these subdivisions are in reality a part of the urban area, and are situated in pockets of unincorporated territory, but they are served by existing special districts. This is the crux of the entire problem of orderly growth of the urban community of effic- ient governmental service. The fact that the special districts con- tinue to exist and perpetuate themselves do provide a certain level of service to those new subdivisions going into the unincorporated areas. It can be demonstrated that this is a false type of service and a false economy on the part of the people because the cost of their governmental services exceeds that of the City providing those services. The Commission discussed the possibility of extending sewer to these areas, but it was noted that very often they find ways of developing without sewer. Member Hyde felt they should recommend to the City Council that the County adopt a policy to terminate the rendering of municipal services to areas close to our boundaries. -16- Member Adams remarked that they could ask for the maximum amount of cooperation to the City considering the City's General Plan. Chairman Stewart directed that this matter be placed on a workshop meeting agenda. Oral Communications Mr. Frank Ferreira discussed the prezoning proposal of the Sweetwater Valley. He reviewed the earlier history of the Valley whereby the residents were required to purchase lots having one or two acres be- cause Dr. Askew required it. This was due to the Board of Health and the percolation requirements prior to sewer coming into the Valley. Today, it is erroneously being stated that these people with the one and two-acre lots are opposing the smaller lots being created in the Valley, when the reason for this size homesite was not created because the people wanted privacy, etc. In view of the fact that a study is being made, he respectfully requests that the Planning Department make some sort of a study into the many subdivisions that were put together prior to the time that they received sewer in the Valley - to see whether or not the Board of Health did require mfnimum area for sewer problems. Chairman Stewart assured him this would be considered. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Rice-Gregson) Meeting be adjourned to the workshop meeting of January 22, 1968. The meeting adjourned at 9:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ,//Jennie M. Fulasz ' Secretary