Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1967/11/20 ORIGINAL MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA November 20, 1967 The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California, was held on the above date at 7 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Guava Avenue, Chula Vista. Members present were Stewart, York, Hyde, Gregson, Rice, Adams, and Guyero Absent: None. Also present were: Director of Planning Warren, Junior Planner Masc.!~r~,=lli, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant City Engine(-~r Gesley. STATE,~NT The :~ecretary hereby states that she did post within 24 hours of t~e adjourned met, ting as required by law, the notice of the adjourned meet~i~ng of November 6, 1967. PU~L'r~'.~ HEARING - REZONING - Northwest__~__ corner of Telegraph. _ .. Ca~on~__ Road and Halecrest Drxve - Request by D-K Investme~t Cor- poration and Gilbert Dreyfuss for rezonin_~ fr)m to C-N The application was read in which a request was made to rezone from R~.3 -;.~ 2-~ that parcel located at the northwest corner of Tele,~raph Canyon Road and Halecrest Drive. Director ¢~f Planning Warren subn~tted a plot plan .~.oting the location, adjac~.nt land use and zoning. He stated that the Inland Fre-~w~y would abnt th-= west side of this parcel. The lot contains .59 acr~3s of !and and ?.s pr~:sently vacant; the applicant proposed to construct a service station o~ this site. While the staff and Commission do not recognize the need for co~unercia! use at all quadrants of every freeway %nter- changa, this site does not appear to be too desirable for mult~.p!e-- family ~s~_. This parcel, because of its location - between 5 {ree~ay ra~p ~n.~ an existing commercial property -would constitute ~ %ogical exten~ion of comm. ercia! zoning. The applicants ha'~e not asked for any reduction in setbacks; therefore, they sho~l~l remain at 25' un:il need for reduction is demonstrated. ThLs bein?' the time and place as advertised, the public he,%rin~ open,:d. i~r., Gi. lDert Dreyfuss, 1615 South Flower Street, Los Angeles, part owne:c of the property, stated he has received numerous request~ fo~ th:.s property for a service station site. He said they were c)nte;~- plat~i, ng multiple-f~nily use for that property east of Crest Dr~ve, as they ar-= the owners of these adjacent lots. Mr. Dreyfuss declared that {.hsy plan to construct this service station in the immediate ture, aad not wait for the construction of the freeway. Th(:r~. b~=ir~g no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was close~. Mc~e:~' Rice oommented that he was not too enthusiastic over ~nothe~ sei~ice station here, but can not help but realize the proximity tc the p~op¢:~ed freeway, etco, a~d he would go along with it. ~4c~)~ ~%daRI3 felt it was decidedly premature - the neighborhood is now well :~e~.~v,~d with service stations and until the freeway is built (three o~ f¢~cr yea~s hence) t~qere is no way of knowing what the best use ~or t3..e ~'arcel will be .... t~at is, for the City of Chula Vista. Member Ad. am~s added that it would appear to be a good site for the proposed C-O :¢ne, for doctors~ offices or other professional uses. MSC ~'.~o~-~k-Guyer) Reconunend approval of the rezoning from R-3 to C-~ a~. ~ka~: setbacks remain at 25'. F~ndi~g~ be as follows: a~ % ~i£e the Co~ission does not necessarily agree that comme:;cial :~cning is warranted next to every freeway interchange~ ii) this ~se, the subject parcel lies between a freeway ramp and an exi~t- .~ r.g commercial property and thus would constitute a logica~ exten- ~'~o~* of the commercial. ~.3'e configuration o~ thc~ lot ~nd its location in relation to ~i~e~.way make~ it undesirable for residential developm~nt. T~e ~2tion carried by the following vote, to-wit: A¥~;S Member~ York, Guyer, Gregson, Stewart and Rice NOES Members Hyde add Adams AB£E~?~~ .. None Mc~)~ ~ .%dams asked that the reasons for his negative vote be shown as refl~<t~d in the minutes: <1) it is premature to rezone this parc¢! a~ t):~s ti. me; (2} th~ freeway construction is still ~{ to 4 yea3~s ~;~.~ ~i~elfe is no way of knowing ~b. at ~he best use for this parc~;1 bo; ~:) it would appear to be a desirable sit~; fo~ the proposed C-~C ti attachment of ~he su lem,:n'~'a) ': zone to the Ch'ale ~xsta ~e~ter and S~]ars s~o~e D3re,'~o? (~f Planning Warren ~plained that this item was continued tke t ~';'icus mee'Sing '~.n ord~:r that the staff could discuss w/th a p~'ese ?t,~tive of ~he Broadway store~ the development of standi~rtts, it w~s (.;~ly Friday that they weze ab~'~e to meet with ~r. Jerome Li}~p~ that } e had brougkt the staff volumes of information., Mr. W~.r~:en ~ske'l ~at th~s meeting again% be continued in order to giYe the st~!~ff ti~e to. g~. ovez this material. -3- Member RicE; asked if there were any r~.sks involved in delaying this action. Mr. Warren indicated that they have reviewed plans for an addition to the corner of the property (southeast co~u~er of Broadway and H) and found it to be an attracti%'e building; however, the sign is out of scale which the developer has agreed to attempt to reduce. There is a possibilJ.ty that a building permit will be requested in the lnter-~-m. Membe~c Ada~s questioned whether the Director felt he could get together some guidekines from the material. Mr. Warren indicated that it appears that .be could. Membe_~ Rice remarked that he wished they could get some interim pro- tecti0n. City ~.ttorney Lindberg stated that the efforts of the representative of th~ Broadway stores was most commendable - they are doing this to retain the fine character of their shopping centers. Mr. Lindberg added ~hat it would be advantageous to the whole planning structure if the C~mmission could get certain standards and criteria set up for the entire city. ~UC (Guye~-~-York) Public hearing be continued to the meeting of Decem- ber 4, 1967, in order to give the staff time to evaluate and compile the data which was submitted to them from a representative of the Broad~'ay Hale stores and to submit a report to the Commission. PUBLIC HEARING - Proposed amend~aent to the zonin~ Ordinance establi.~h- ing amusement enterprises as uses ~ to a con.- ditional use permit in C-2, M-1 ah-d~one---s Dir,~ctot of Planning Wa&-r,~n explained that presently amusement ente~c- prises ere a permitte~ use in the C-2 zones. Other special provisions are d~lineated for site deve!op[,~nt, such as a wall abutting a resi- denti~.l area, site plan review, et cetera. It has only recemlty co~,ue to ouz att~-ntion that there are problems encountered with 'this blan3~et provision. In this respect, the Council passed an emergency ordina.~ce requiriEg any proposed amusement enterprise to be reviewed by the Plann~.nc~ Con~ission under the conditional use permit procedure. This em~rg,?!%¢y ordinance is effeciive for 90 days, and this particular o~cdi- nsnce ir question tonight would replace this interim ordinance. This ~2,~-ing the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was There being no co~ent~, either for or against, the hearing was dec~..~red ciose ~. -4- ~UC (Adams-Gregson) Resolution of the City Planning Commission recommend- .SOLUTION ~0. 487 ing to City Council the adoption of an ordinance amending Chapter 33, Sections 33.36 and 33.36ol of the City Code, by deleting subsection (3), Amusem-=nt Enterprises, as a permitted use, and including said use as subsection (4) of Section 33.36.1, as a us=- permitted subject to a conditional use perm. it; al~o, to include said use as subsection (3) of Section 33.39.1 (M-1 zone) and subsection (4) of Section 33.42.2 (M-2 zone). Findings be as follows: a. The Planning Commission has determined that amusement enterprises shoul~ be permitted only after review by the Comm_iss~on using as its reviewing process the conditional use permit ~r,~cedu~"e to ~etermi~e the compatibility of such a use in the particular location }?,rcpose~~ On Cctober 31, 1967, the City Council adopted aD emergency o~?diDan3e for a 90-day period requiring a conditional use i~er~lt for Drcpose~ am%~s ement enterprises. c. T~e City ?l&nning Comraission finds that in order to insure ~.reserva- tied of ti~e public health,safety, and general welfare of th~i City >f Chula Vista, it is necessary to recommend adoption of a per~arent ordinance eliminating amusement enterprises as permitted uses in t~e C-2 zone and requiring that said uses be permitt~d only subject to a ccn:~-~tional use peI~it. PUBLIC ~EARING - VARIANCE - 572 Flower Street -- Request for reduction front ya.r~ setbae~ from '3~--~'o--~-~--/--~-~-p~ L.. The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction i front yard se+.back from 30~ to 15' for the purpose of constructing a 6' high masonI7 wall in connection with a proposed apartment coml-:ls:{. Directo= of Pianning Warren submitted a plot plan not:~ng the location~ adjacent ia.nd use and zoning° He stated the lot measures 302' ~ 100~ ~nd there is now ,~n existing 30' setback along the street. It is unusual have a 30' setback but they do exist especially throughout tile elder p~r't of the City. The applicant has a proposal for a m~ltiple-fa~t~ily devel>p-- ment t[~at appi~rently will permit develop~¥;nt at almos{: maxim%u,~ density. The appl]~.-ant is proposing to construct his swi~mming pc~l in the fror~t yard - tz~-=re is another ord. inance in the city governing swi~m:.n§ Fools the front yard. -5- Sometimes the staff recommends approval of these requests if it can be shown that the setback reduction would permit a better plan; however, in this case, the staff feels this would ~o nothing more than permit construction of the swimming pool and 6' high fence in the front yard. Director Warren noted that most of the buildings on this street do ob- serve the 30' setback, and a few actually encroach upon the setback~ Mr. Warren listed the staff's reasons for denial for this request and conditions for approval, should the Commission desire to grant the re- quest. This Ueing the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. W. S. Zehner, owner of the property to the e~st of this parcel, stated he has 12 1-bedroom ~its and at the time he wanted to build this complex, he proposed to construct 2-bedroom apartments (12) bu~: couldn't do it because he had to stay in back of the 30' setback, as did t~}e other apartments on this street. Mr. Zehner discussed the ap- plican'%'s proposed parking layout, commenting that he would have no ob]ec~o to the request if the applicant kept his parking and swi~ing pool behind the 30' setback. Director Warren explained that the proposed parking will be set back 30'. Mr. Ralph Abbott, the applicant, stated he had nothing further to add to the Director's comments but would answer any questions the Commi:~- sioners might have. He affirmed the fact that his proposed parking would be in back of the 30' setback. He has owned the property for 8 years, and now it appears that they will be able to go ahead with this project if the variance is granted. He remarked that they were not speculators but will be constructing a nice development. The palm tree on the property would have to be removed; however, he is willing to give it to the City if they want itc Member Gregson asked the applicant how many units he would lose if observed ~e 30' setback. Mr. Abbott stated he would have the same number of units; howemer, ne would not be able to construct the swimming pool. His lot is only 100' ~¢ide and this is not enough for parking and a pool. There being no further com~ent, either for or against, the hearing declare~ closed. Member Adams declared that the fact that all the others on this stre~t adhere to the 30' setback, he should be able to do so also, especially since ne has so much depth to his lot. Mr. Adams added that there were no exceptional circumstances here, and the approval of this re- quest ,could be detrimental to the adjoining properties. -6- Member Rice felt the parking layout was a poor plan - there will be less use of the rear parking and more on-street parking. Member York remarked that he had mixed emotions about this - he can unde~cstan¢~ Mr. Abbott's concern about getting the maximum use with this site, and 15' is a good setback for t~ese developments. In this case~ he feels the applicant is asking for the wrong variance; he should be advised to get the pool o%~.t of this area and revise his plans accordingly. Mr. York added that he would be more receptive to a build, in? setback. Memb,:~ .~ams said he would rather see a pool and 6' high fence or wall out ]%~re than he would a building. Member Rice indicated that if the Commission were to make an exception here, they would have to give the same privilege to the properhy to the ~est. Member York remarked that the rising land costs and the furt~her che~nges to the zoning ordinance will dictate that people developing R-3 areas will have to be given maximum use of their site in keeping with a s~o~md building plan. This 30' setback was established a number of years ago, but this shouldn't be kept forever; if so, Mr. York contended that somewhere along the line, the City will find itself with a la~.:ge am~o=~ of vacant R-3 property %~at cannot be developed economically. Chai~'~an Stewart stated that he was on the Commission when ano'~her prop,{:rt~ owner in this same block requested a reduction of set'.pack; he was ~urned down by the Commission. Mr. Stewart maintained that they ca,~n~t have one set of rules for one property owner and 50' down the block have another set of rules. For this reason, he is not i~ fa,.'or of changing the setback. Member York stated he doesn't agree - as city-wide conditions .-han~e, if th.~; Commission reasons this way, they will never have progr-=ss. MSUC .[Rice-Gregson) ~equest be denied based on the following 1. There are no exceptional circumstances requiring the reduchion in Eront yard setback because the rpoposed lot is 302' deep, ~llow- tng adequate room to develop within the prescribed limits :~f tl~e ordin~mce. 2. ?~% would be detrimental to the area since all new apartment de~. ~elopment, as well as the majority of the older units, conform to ~:he 30' setback. 3. '~he proposed reduction would affect the General P~an since it ,,;ould be encouraging an increased density for the site by ~llo~.~- ~.ng the expansion into the front setback area of a necessary !~mentiy to the apartment development. The ~pplicant was informed of his right to appeal this decisiDn to the City Council within 10 days. PUBLIC HEi~RING - VARIANCE - 666 "H" Street - Request for :reduction of~ ~ront yard setback fror~ "~~-~'"---f-6'~' a hang and to 0' for sign The appli~:ation was read in which a request was mede for reduction front yard setback for 25' to 7'6" for the canopy overhang and 0~ s~t.- back from a 6' x 10' non-rotating freestanding sig'n in connection with a propose(% service station. Direc'~or (~f Planning Warren submitted a plot p~.~n noting the location and the adjacent zonings and land use. He discussed the request an(~ noted tha: the plot plan indicates a 10' x 17' sign, 65' high, at the rear of their proposed service station° Mr. Warren then reviewed the staff's r~-~commendations of approval. He added that the applicant reque~ted a site plan review along with this variance request. Thc~ site plan does not require Commission approval; however, the staff felt it would be in order to discuss this overall site with the Commission at this t~.me. Ordinarily, this is an administrative matter, but differenc~.~s between the staff and applicant can be solved at this meet- ing. Mr. Warren t~hen delineated the recommended revisions of the sLt.. plan as noted by the staff. Member Yo~."k asked if the applicant has agreed to these conditions. Director %tarren indicated that there may be a question about the di- mensions of the planter adjacent to Oaklawn Avenue, and that the ap-- piicant would, no doubt, have some comments about this since he hes indicated his plans for angle parking in this area. Member Hyde asked if a narrower planter box could be p%%t ir here. i4r. Warren st~ted it could; however, the dimensions of the one that the applicant is proposing - 3 feet - would be inadequate. This bein~ the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Max MLchelson, representing American Oil Company, stated that their greatest concern is the recommended planter box on Oaklawn Avenue. They want to maintain a small area for parking cars and a trash area beyond the building and a oertain amount of maneuvering space is needed to get tc this trash area. He remarked that American Oil was not un- willing to provide a planter in this area, and was willing to work this out ~ith the staff. Mr. Michelson added that they anticipated putting up a freeway sign but found, because of their location, it would not benefit the company. They will eliminate the sign at the rear of the building and replace it with the sign at the corner measur- ing 10' x 17'. The height to the top of this freestanding sign will be approximately 35' since they would like to stay within the require- ments of '=he ordinance. As to i;!~e p:cice signs, ~_r. Michelson questioned the use of Blu~ C:~;i? stamp signs~ they would like to advertise that they distribute thi~:; product~ The size of the lot is 117' x 139o31' - they usually req',~ir.~ 150: ~ 15i~' if they have two canopies; they will have one canopy h~::.~e. Chairman ~]tewart felt the freestanding sign at the corner should kept ~t the originally proposed ~ize witr~ou~ going to 10' x 17~. Michelso~ stated that if only one sign w~re permitted, the la.'~ger would be de~izable. Dirsctor ~arren state~ that in this C-i}~ zone, there is no restri(:tf )n as to the size of the sign - the freew~y is approximately 800' fro!n tke site. There bei,~g no further co~nt~ either for or against, the hearing was d~cal~;ed closed. Director %~arren indicated that he could ~ot defend the need for th,~ 9' planter, but that a 3' wide planter would be worthless. The sion mt%st determine whether a planter box adjacent to Oaklawn Aven~:e would be ~lesirable and then leave the details up to the staff. Chairman :]tew~rt contended the box should, definitely be more than 21' wide. Member Ad.~ms stated that in reference to the variance, the freestanding sign should ba no larger than originally proposed~ 6' x 10', 26~ high. This would] give a total of 124 square feet of signs for the site~ Director of Planning Warren reiterated tkat the question here was whether t31e Commission will permit the sign in the setback and (2) whether you will permit it to go over 60 square feet as requested. The Commission, in this case, does have control over the size of the sign since it involves a setback variance. Member Adams commented further that to p.~,rmit a 10' x 17' sign in the setback, as an exchange for -~he tower sign in the rear, would be unwise since the tower sign might be erected i~ the future. MSC (Adam~]-Hyde) Request for reduction in front yard setback from 25' to 7'6~' for the pump island canopy overhang and to 0' for freestand- ing pole ~]ign. ~he following on-site sl%~s shall be permitted: a. One pole sign (60 square feet and not exceeding 26' in height), non-rotating, or flashing with design to be submitted for staff approYal. b. One f~ush building sign 40 square feet as shown on the elevations. c. One flush American emblem 9 square feet as shown on the elevations. do One price sign 15 square feet, location to be determined b.~ staff. -9- Findings be as follows: a. ?hat the strict application of the zoning regulations or require- ment:~ would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsi~tent with the general purpose and intent of the regulations. The 2~' setback along "H" Street was established when the area was used for residential purposes. The City Council of Chula Vista stated upon rezoning of this area that variances would be c~nsidered in~ividually for freestanding signs. b. ?hat there are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to th~s prcperty involved or to the intended use or development of the property that do not app.~.y generally to other property in the same zone or neighborhood. 7~'f sign were set back, the pole would be in conflict with 'the a~ea used for ingress and egress to the station. Variances have previcusly been granted in the area for similar commercial v~loi~ments concerning setback reduction. c. 'l't~at the granting of a variance will not be materially detri~=~6ntal to ti%?, puk,!ic welfare or injurious to property or improvements in ,~uch zone c~r neighborhood in which the property is located. :fhi~ request is no different from the existing setbacks in the area ~or freestanding signs. d,.~ Ti~at the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objec- tives of the Gener~l Plan. Tt~e G~neral Plan is not affected. Ti%c m~tion :.~ri_d by the following vote~ to-wit: AYES~ Members Ad~s, Hyde~ York, Gregsen~ Stewart a~d R3ce NOES: Member Guyer ABSfINT: None [%~UC /iY~r~-.Adams) Tha~i t~he site plan be approved subject to ti~e r~vi- sions recc,~mended by the staff: .... ~,m- type of planting shall be provided a~Jacent to the we]te~r~y prope~?ty line; the extent of and design of which shall be ~ppr¢,ved, by the staff° 2, .'~ minimum of five (5) street trees, at least 6' tail shall be pro- ';},ded. T~le eLclosed trash area shall be revised to accommc~late a stan~.ard cgn~e~cial container used by the local trash collection sea-vice'. -10- 4. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for staff approval before a building permit is issued. 5. The location of the tire marketer shall be shown on the site plan, if one is to be used. 6. Any other outside storage of products or materials shall be ap- proved by the Planning Department° This notation shall be attached to the business license. ~equ~st for approval of signs - 32 Third Avenue Extension - House of ' Draught - "D" zone Director of P~anning Warren showed the Commission pictures of the pro- posed signs. He explained that the business establishment is in the "D" zone which limits the sign area to 50 square feet. The applicant's sig~ have already been attached to the front and sides of this build- ing and totals 32 square feet. The staff reconunends approval. MSUC (Guyer-Gregson) Approval of signs as submitted. _ Re~st fpr_~roval of signs - 4210 Bonita Road - Big Bear Marke~- ......... · '~" zone -- Director uf P~ning Warren informed the Commission that the site plan and building design was approved at the initial submission of pla~s for the market. They are now asking for approval of their pro- ?os~(~ ~:igo - a seven letter sign spelling out BIG BEAR. These letters ~i!] De 35~' x 35" separate~ f].~sh-mounted cabinets~ inter,or upor e~ch would be printe~ a 22" high orange letter; the back,~roua~ will oe white. They propose no freestanding sign at this time. They are ~i~hia their sign limitation, but there is some concern on tk~e part ef t~e stnff as to t~e color they propose which may be somewhak 3.c~d cr %~.1~[ -~ the staff suggested anothez' shade of brown against ~he ~hitT whi<h %~i!1 be more s%~bdued. The staff has had no chanf=e to thi~ ~f.~ the applic~nt~ but a letter has been sent to him 9~ith ~bis r e cc~:~mends tion. ~UC (Hyde-Rice) Approval of sign as submitted. The color of the let- ters to be approved by the Plaaning Department. -ll- Co,moil Referral - Amended ~rezonin~ request - Koeni~ Ann¢:xation Directc. r of Palnning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the area. He ex?lained that the Commission considered a request for prezoning this pr~perty which is located on t~le south side of Bonita Road between Otay Lakes Road and Palm Drive, on October 23, 1967. The applicant re- qu,~_sted R-3-B-3-D, R-l-B-9 and R-.I-B-20, but the Co~%mission recommended R-l-E-20 for the entire annexation. Prior to Council consideration of this matter, the applicant altered his request by elim/nating the R.-I-E-.~,.. As a result of this change, the Council has referred thi:~ matter ba,=k to the Co~aission for reconsideration. The staff has not received a subdivision map but they did receive a sketch of what i.~ propelled. The applicants are now proposing to subdivide this property into R-l-B-20 lots except for the 3.8 acre parcel fronting on Bonita Road fo[,3 which they are requesting R-3-B-3-D. The General Plan places the intersection at Bonita Road and Otay Lakes Road in a high density residential category~ however, 8 acres south of Bonita Road and west of Otay Lakes Road was zoned C-1 by the C2Lt~. Appzox~matety 24 acres of property remain west of subject property for which the land use is as yet undetermined° It now appears likely that a portion of that property will be developed commercially? however, neither the County nor the City has developed a detailed plan for this area, and~ there is no interest on the part of the residents in the Valley to get an updated zoning plan for their area. Mr. Warren continued by discussing the rural character of the Vatl=~y whict~ ¢~aracter has been established because of the amount of unf%e- Yelc.~e~ land here. He also discussed the need for all types cf ing ~.m the Valley, emphasizing that the key is density control. D]~rs:~tor Warren then discussed the proposed apartment complex stating it %~c~u]d i3e 47 uni%.s. Much of the parking will be covere~] parking. One ~.'~f tb~ objections voiced was the concern over the architecture and mat~'ials used in the buildings. The staff has come up with some guid~:l.dnes which they are recommending~ if approved~ Thence g~idel~_nes wou].~'. ~3ive the devel(~per scmet~%ing to work with in order %0 preserve ~'he architecture and character already established. The questio~ ~he Co~a~i.s.~ion must decide is the appropriateness of m~,lltip!e-fami~Ly u~its on ~'Ni~ ~,ite ,- either khe need is there or it can be acco~ods~-e~ ~r. Ja~es Patten, speaking on i~ehalf of the applicant, stated the zen- .ing for the land use on BoDita Road to the Sunnyside Bridge i~.. prinarily ccm~.~r(~'ial of one type or another. They feel that zoning for dens~.ty m~ltiple units here wo'%~ld set a precedent for tha;. prc.peYty to the ~e.~t. They are also establishing a buffer znne of on,~-,half ~c~e lots for this sub~ivi~,~iono He observed that the County G~.neral spe¢~ fies commercial zoning for the corner of Bonita Road and Otay Lakes '~oad ~ ~he size of which would be detex%.~!ined at a later da=e. If d~- velcpe,3 ~a the County, they could, put in 1 apartment per !000 sq~are fee~ o.f /.and area, but by u:utting in R~-3-B-3-D~ there will be a much lower ~!en~ity th~ that pezmitted by the County. They have rot filed -12- a subdivision map but have submitted a sketch on which they delineate a proposed pattern of development. They have left long deep lots on tke south side of the property because of the topography. As to the recommended guidelines by the staff, the applicant agrees to all of tkem~ In answer to Member Rice's question, Mr. Warren stated that the size of the parcel proposed for R-3 zoning is 320' x ~50' or 3.8 acres. C~..airman Stewart declared this was not a public hearing but the Com- mis:~ion would hear any remarks from those in the audience wishing to c¢,~:~ent cn the revised request. M~. ?a,,~l Seng, president of the S%'eetwater Valley Civic Assocf. ation, stated he would not repeat his co~.~ents made at the previous :~eeting. }~.~ %~ould, however, challenge Mr. Patten's comments pertaining to the c(~mJi~rcial zoning along Bonita Road to Sunnyside. Malnly~ th~s would enc~,~n~pas:~ scattered vegetable stands - certainly not commerci~l lng alcn~ the length o~ Bonita Road. If the zoning for apart~'.ents is a~pr<~ved here~ it will commit alt of the property to the ~,~'est to com- n~rc~al ~'~cningo Mr. Seng conten~ed that this proposed zoning pattern w~s ~o better than it was 3 w~eks ago, and they are again req~,l~s~-ing t?,e C©.~r~n~ssion deny the request. :~3'~ i~.ich~,rd Schauss, 3814 Valley Verde, Bon:~ta, stated that f~r the p~:s'~ 8 years he has been living h~.re, he has seen this proper~y in q~les~:ion tonight under water - it is 3 feet below the level o:~ s~:re~%, Mr. Schauss added thst he has seen a subdivision map of this a.~:e~ and proceeded to discuss the width and location of the p~:oposed :~:oad~: ~nc sidewalks. Chairman Stewart reminded the speaker that just the .~%u~s~ion of the prezoning was under discussion - not a s%~division map. Mr. Schauss declared that he objects to the request fee:~ing that 4:~ u~-i.[~s on a 3.8 acre parcel, where otherwise 8 residential units wouil.:i ':~e permitted, wo~ld be unde.~<irable, ~,~r. ~i'~ale Burkey, 4807 Del Prado~ Donita~ asked that the Commission re- a.ff:!.rm tb.,~,ir previous recom~n~endat:.on to the Council° N~:. An~elo Palango, 4833 Del ~rado, Bonita, stated they ~o no'~ w~nt 0pa~;'~ments in this area - they want to retain a rural area wh<~reby ~he~ .~an raise their c~ildren and have horses. ~.t~:, ::ack Mestler, the applicaDt~ :cemarked that all of the water onto ~hi~:~ property comes down from the Bonita Be! Aire subdivision an.~ c~.~:~.'.:s t?.e flooding~ they propose: to put in undz, zground drain thro~.~c3ho~% the property. The cost of developing the subdivision b(~. :~700~Q00 and for the R-3 property, $600,000. The homes he is ~ro- p~s.ng tc construct will complement these homes to the east< .... pp~.,.c~m.. ~ pzoperty t-3 f :~mu .!~: d.a:ve lopmer:, t. '.~ -. ? urclts per ~:::e~, for ~: d~pth cf apj2ro~Lmat:e!y ~50~ ,'the ~ ~- '~Z'~'~' ~' ~ ;tll~.[ ~:~ ......,,1,~ C-~ ?oK,.ing because they feel it is presently the only zone which would p~rmi'~~. thins use. The staff fee~:.s we should now i?ave an "unclassif%ed us? cate~3ory to include this use and others sued as churches, sch,)o!s~ t~sat.~rs, et cetera - all where large gatherings of pe~pl~ would be invo~.~,~d, and where such uses can not properly be classified as a. mitred use in ~3%y particular zone. Dire.~:%or Warren then reviewed two recommendations: (1) that the Com- mission approve a resolution to place campqrounds under this uncla~si- fisd ~ase category subject to conditional use per~i.t and the location t%) b~ reviewed by ~ae Commission~ and (2) direct ~he staff to prep'are ~.~ u.~:classified use section fo~.' %he new zoning ol!dinance. City Atto:cney Lindberg commente~l ~%at there are many uses that should be placed in an unc~.~ssified section which, would eliminate the nec-~s~ sS. ty f¢,r :cozening for heavy con~.ercial, for such uses as that requested tonight. Once the Co~uission establishes a hea~3 commercial zone~ most control is lost and there is no assurance that the originally prop)se¢l uss will be built. One example of this~ Mr. Lin¢~)erg reJ. ated, is the pr.o~osed convalescent facility in Bonita which zonin9' was "juggled around' for months. Mr. ?~arren indicated that the applicants have filed their prezonin~ request for C-2 based on the advice of the staff, which as it '~urns out was bad advice. 9?he problem can be solved if the Council will adep~.~ as an emergency ordinance=-, the proposed unclassified use ~e~tion~ Cit~ Attorney Lindberg indicate,.S. ~hat such would be possible and the ~:taff would draft a proposed ordin~uce fo:~ ¢.:~nsideration et th~ Dec~:u~er ~ n~e~ting~ The Co~.umi~sion asked the applic~,rts about the de~,ay in time involved in thi~ p:cocess. ~r. Ted% Bell, representing the other applioan~:s~ stated they are t:~ying to ~,~at a deadline to open for ~he first of June, ~e added that t ~.ey are ao'P. particularly concerne'~ with t~e type of i~:c~ning ~h~y get as lone ~:~ ~ay a~e able to operate the campgrounds, Dir~.c~or Warren cemented that,, with a condition:~t use permit, t3,~e in.-. ciden~al uses such ~s stor~s~ ~?,=~st rooms~ etc. ~ ¢:o~ild be permitted. '.qbe Co~,~uission then discussed the app£icant's pro?:osed prezoning quest: to C-2. Member York suggested an agricult%~:~-al classific~t~o~. 5~SU¢ (York-Adams) D~.~ect t~be staff to prepare ~,:n ordinance settir, g up camp?rounds and camper-parks as a use permitted s~:~bject to ~ use pe~u~i.~ in an "Unclassified ~se" catego~t. Th,~,~ ordinance ~o ?,e ~.~t~.d to the Ccr~,m~ission ior r~5%iew at the Dec~:~)er 4 m~etin~. -16- Review of Home Occup~ation Pe__~.i_~t.- 109, "E" Street - Silhouette Salon Director of Planning Warren stated that on June 9, 1961, Mrs. Virginia L©ria was granted a Home Occupation Permit to operate a "gyroduc~.ng'~ opel~tion from her home. From time to time, the staff has received unofficial complaints about ~is business b~t no one wanted to pursue it. Another complaint was received from a neighbor complaining ~out t~.e traffic generated by this business, the use of the home for this bu~siness, and the sale of other products. Mr~ Warren dis~ssed the Home Occupation Pe~it and remarked that a notice of this discussion was ~ent to all ~e residents in ~e area. Mrs,, Lee R~ey, 198 First Avenue, stated she purchased her home in ~S~5~) when i~ was primarily a residential ~o~unity. She discussed t~e traffic problem and the fact ~at the applicant vetoed a left- h~.nd t~rn proposal when it was before the Council. She maintain~ that tke applicant's customers not only park near her ho~ but around bet hcm~ as well - on bo~ sides since she lives on the corner~ ~he ap [~!ic,~nt has two cars ~ one in the garage ~d the other in the dri~. M~s, Ramsey also stated that the applicant sells jewei~ and cosme~tic~ n(~t ~ssociated with her business~ There is also the problem of tra:~. ~hich she (Mrs. R~sey) has her children pick up from time tJ~:e since it is scattered by the applicant. She declared that appkicant is present3.y %~sing her living room for the b~siness and had to ]~.~e an addition of a f~ily room at the rear of the d~elling ~or t~e~ ~ own use. She felt the applic~t should operate a business ~uch a~ t~is in a co~ercial area such as Third Avenue. ~n ~r~swer to Me,er Rice's question, ~. Ra~ey stated that the ?ours of operation were from 8 a~m. until 11 p.m. She dec!are~ she was re~ cen?~y awakened at 12:15 p~,m. by a party at the Loria residence~ ~rs Vir?inia Loria, the applicant, stated she did not underst~d why she ~as kere tonight~ She had a patio sale recently, which had no~ing to ~ with her busines,3~ She explained ~]e operation of he~" business co~m%enti~g that she ha~ 2 to 3 girls there at one time. The maximum nu~cr of p~ople in th~ house at one time would be not more than a3~l ~he can handle at one time is 3 customers and many times, thes~ com~ in ,~.e c~r, so she doesn't underst~d why there is the txaffic p~cble~ Cha~rm~n Stewa~'% questioned, the sale of other products. Mrs~ Lor~ de(i~red she has only ~he Beauty Counseler products (cosmetics) Cha:~.~ Stewart discussed ~e p,~t wi~h ~e app!icaDt advisin~ her tha~ since her business has expanded to such a degree~ ske should~ per~aps~ be looking for a ~owntown location. ~43~s~ Loria discussed the ho~s of operation co~nting tkat she ~s at a split shift from 9 a.m. to 7 or 8 p.m. and nevez any later ~ha~l that. -17- Director Warren commented Qn the Home O~cupation permits declaring ~at they should be permitted only when it is clearly incidental to the residence; it should be barely noticeable, and something that is al- most impossible to know what is going on. The staff is wondering if thLs particular use has not outgrown its Home Occupation permit; how- ever, this is the determination the Commission must make. Mrs. Loria informed the Commission that the whole business is operated from one room of her house - she has the reducing machines and she gives facial massages. Member Rice commented that he was under the impression that a Home Oc~:upation Occupies a very small office space in the home - and no traffic problems - used primarily to receive telephone calls, get mail, and otherwise housing some very minor equipment. He contended that a person h~s the right to a livlihood but she admits to an 8 hour opera- tion. In this respect, Mr. Rice added, he feels Mrs. Loria has outm grown her p~esent operation and should cease operation here within 30 da~,s. Me~aber Adams agreed, adding that one requirement of a Home Occupation is that there should be no changes in the home - her living room has been converted to this business, and by having to add another room at the rear of the dwelling certainly does change the residence. Member York stated that he rides by here at least 6 times a day an~ has never noticed any traffic problem. He added that if the Con~is- sion does determine that this is not a proper subject for a Home Oc- cupation, the applicant should be given more than 30 days to find a ne~ location, perhaps 90 days. ~ Loria maintained that they could not rent a place for this type of business and make a go of it. His wife only works by appointment° Meister Rice said he interpreted this as being open for business an¢i. beS. ng available for business at these ho~rs. Mrs. Ramsey stated that the business was originally on Highlan~ A~enue in National City; part of this equipment is now stored in her gar~<ge. The applicant has a table for massaging, two chairs, another table~ and the mechanical equipment l~ the living room. Mr~ Warren asked if the Commission had adequate information on ~%is to act on this matter tonight. Mr. Tony Loria spoke of the traffic involved, stating they never have ha(~ more than 2 or 3 cars there at one time and they were all parked in front of their property. The only time they had more cars in '~is area was the weekend they had their patio sale. As to the busines~ at Highland Avenue in National City, he remarked that his wife was in par~%ership with another woman there who operated a beauty shop. Membe~ York moved that the matter be continued until the next meeting since he would like more time to research ~is and observe the area more closely, and to investigate the other complaints mentioned by th~ department. The motion died for lack of a second. ~e~mbei~ Byde asked if there were any legal ramifications involved here. City Attorney Lindberg answered in the negative, stating that a Home Occupation is certainly a ~tter of grace and right to conduct a busi- ness in a residential area. The business, h~ever, should fall into th~ definition of a Home Occupation. ~here is no provision in the or~inance for an appeal to the City Council~ however, the matter can b~ brough% before the Council° M~mber Adams felt that direct action should be taken since all indi- cations point to this as not being suitable as a Home Occupation° He added tha~ perhaps this should be continued and the staff make an in- sp~ction of the premises. ~C (York-Adams) Continue this matter to the meeting of December 4, 1957, and the staff be directed to make a report on this business wh[ck would cover traffic problem, the amount of equipment used, the s~[e of other products in the home, the hours of operation, etCo A me!~er of the staff to make a field inspection of the premises ccver- in~ ~qe aspects of the business. Director of Planning Warren noted that the next three items on ~e ag~n~ were for requests for extension~ of time. The staff recom- ~'~ds approval for all three. ~e~uest f~r extension of time - Conditional Use Permit and Variance - A---t--i--antic-Richfie~'J Southwest corner Bonita Roa~ and Otay ~ R0~d ~iJC (~ce-York) The extension be approved to June 1969, which is sufficient time for construction work on Bonita Road to be completed,, ~,{uest for extension of time ~- Conditional Use Permit - Unite~ Penteco~C-~-J-~9 "H" Street (Ric~-York) Approval of extension for a two-year period; permit now expire on November 26~ 19~9o Re~.~.~t for extension c*f time. Co!~ditional Use Permit - Chula Vista CA~-~ o~. ~'azarene ~ ~-~" Street ~3~C ~Rioe-York) Approval of one year extension of time; said pezmit will ~xpi~re on November 1, 1968. Written Com'munications ~ letter was rea,~l fr©m Mr. Rioha:cd Kasper~ Princess Park Es%ates, ~kJng for reconsideration of the deletion of the wall on th~ nort%erly ~ro~.rty line of ~he ~hopplng c~=~t~r at Melrose 2~venue, north of O~nge ~:~e~%e. They f~ci thi~ is an u~f~ir requiremen~ not only to the ~:~m~ element inw~,tve5., but also to the fact ~at 'there is a possibility that the o~ners may ~eek ccmmercial zoning. Mr. Kasper also maint~:[n~d t~a~ the ~iope was suc~ that the northerly prope:~:ty owners %~ould n:~t Da ~ble to reduc~ the grade of that p~operty to the same l~vel as s ~o~ pi:ag =enter. (hairm~n -~tewart directed the sta~ff to l~ake a st~dy and report bac~ z~: %he ne(t m,met~ng~ Disco Planni~ Congress Warren noted t~at the n~x-h dinner meeting will be held on l~ 1967, a~', the Tcrrey Pines tnn~ La Jok~a and urg(~d all c )~.~,sgioae.cs w~.o .o.. to att~nd, as the spe~e:c is excelleIxt. ,e:.~a~ would, call the Com~d:~sion for rese~3~ations.