HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1967/09/182,~ t?our,~ ofaa3o,~.-,.,m~' '" '" ~',~nt ,~..~'~ re:}lqi~:ed by ~a,~. the o~:c].er for h!z~e ...... ..
?:a=t.]n9 of Sapte~]ker 5~, !967.
September 18, 1967
A~PROVi'~ OP M~NUTES
- .~ aln.x ~., of Se'Dte~er 6, 1967, as mailed.
NS~}C iE~de-Rice) Approval. of ' ~-t'~ _
~O_L.N~ Pro~;rt~I~ north side of 't(" Streat~
?9BLIC HEARING - :;v ~ ~- ~
~f:r~ east of Fourth Av,?nue ~ R-.1
~65~ '~'r~ ~'-'FF6~-'2~'5-'~~ '--
~.~;ect~r of Plannings' Warran st:.ated that this matter was .kn3~t.:ia-ted
~,~ Planning Co.,~ission as :¢eco~m~enc!ed by the ~arf. IL,: camco.
~'3 a reSULt of recent rezoning a~ioD:~ in the area. The l~tnd is
sently v-acant and zoned R-I~ measuring 14-,~ x 163~ with an ...... s~..~:~
setback of 20' a_~onF X Street~ Mr. Warren submitted a pl~,- f=~a:~ noti¢<r
the location~ the adjacent la,~ld use an,i zo~in9.
T~is being the ti~le add place as adver'tisad, the public he.¢ring wa~
openeil ~
Mr. Arthur Sp~ncez'~ Joshua Tree, California~ asked what %h~ "D'
was. Director of Planning Warren explained the r~quirements of
design control zone. F%.r~ Spencer questioned whether the a ....
value of ~' ~
n_s property would go up with Chis uarticular zoning.
Warren cemarked that, to tile best of hJ.s knowledge~ ~he a=.,as.~o~. 0as~:~
his asae:~smen'~, oD the potential of~e land regardless of l~e ~ ~'~ '~
however~ there is that possibility that it will 9o up~
~qr, Spencer declare~ that he disu~ssed this with the assessor; and %
told %ha':: his assessment would go up between 30% and 35%. Since
owned the pro~)erty~ it has 9o%~e up 700%,
F~,m. ber Rice commeated '~hat~2 this ~a~ tlu~ ttii.3 yeast -~ ~.s al.'.
for at least one year sc that he can sav'e this 35% increase in his
ta~es ~
I~r. George E!wood, 765 G!over Avenue, stated he bought his home here
i5 years ego and has $20,000 invested in the home now~ It has always
beer his understandin~ that the area is R-1 anJ. thai once the businesses
are bought single.-famity homes ~fould go in~ He asked if Glover would
eve~' be e~d~er:ded through to K Street.
Oir~ ctor ~farren indicated he knew of no plans to do that; if it was
he ~-:xtended~ it probaoly would be a cui-de-sac~ ~4r~ Elwood stated
was concerned ever %he increase of t'raffic aha% would result if the
street were extended.
Hi;. Warren Retell that the staff has receive~ a few letters from prop~
erty e~ners north of this aree offering different comments relating
ko {~he p};oposed R~3 development. He said the staff will take all
these letters into co~sideration when the site plan is reviewed~ The
staff feels %~ st R..~ zon~n~ fox this lot ~.¢i!1 promote the most logi6al
~e fo~u the area? whi. ch .~s the reason the rezening is being considered
~t this
~?here h:eing no further cos~mena, either f~)r or aga%nst, the Nearing w~s
declared closed.
~Eember Rice co,fermented that R-3 is the most logical development for
this area~ and he would like to see the adjacent area~ F~resently zoned
C-2, also rezone~, to R-3.
>IeP. ter Yo?k declared that this matter could be postponed since it was
[nitia'Ced by th{ Con~%ission} the applicant has no present ~.lens for
,=ei?.]r.g it (~r developing it st this time.
~.e~e~~ Hyde asked if the nw~ie?' objected to the proposed zoning.
· ~peacer claimed he did not object to the R.--3 zoning, b~t just asked
for a poshpor~eme~lt of. o~e year so he co%:ld save en his t~xes this ye~r~
P. Ie~er ~yde agre-..d 'khat ti~e !c%ical use for thz~ land was R-3~ howeve~
since the ownem did object to having it rezoned ~t this time~ he
mends no action. The applicant will not be developing it as R-i since
[t is too valuable a piece of property.
P5!~{3~ ~{y~%e-~R.ce} No action be taJ{en on this item and the matter filed.
City Attorney Lindberg explained to the applicant that i%his matter is
no~~ final unless appealed, to the City Council withi, n i0 days~
6'~,~---i;'2F<F~r~-,~-~'u~ rem:~nt and sidegard setbacks
Dlirechor of Planning ~arzen ~.,..:,.~.d this ma~ter was contlnL~..d from ~'~
~,t m~ etnng so th~ ...... e sta~:~ ceulc further study the pail, in
~i.ons and also datelined, ne whether or not a subdivision map should b~
f~' Warren reviewed the appi. i~:an~ requests as f(,l~e,.~s- (1) a
hi.oR in lot s!ze to 3500 squar~ feet/ ~9
.)ack f[om 5~ to zero; (3} llermission t;.} build on ~; lot having
~ ~ ........ woule be dedicated as :cequired ~v the CJt ~' a~d the
b~' ~ ~ in the utlllty service from the ~ ~="1 -' ~-v~ a!oDc~ ut=
~" ...., ?.~. ].lVin%' units via ~n undergFeun, d '~.. - h~ the subdivisJen ~p
w~ ~ re!uired~ the ~!e~/eloper would be required ~;O install. . undergrcv:'~d
,.~?. Ne3.'ren then r.sferred to 'the ss;etch sent to ~he Co~i}.ssioI~
,..._.,c u,;e ~,a.,~hc.~s of acconm~odauing offs'treat parking, {S't'adv No. 1
'i,le. 2). The staff reccm,~a~nds %hat c .... tr~et parking be prcvided
} ,cozdance with Study NO, 2 which will provide two of...~t_ .....
........... ~ unit behind the front setbac, k line; +~,,= applLicant~s ori~in~l
~A.ans proposes a i car 9a,.ag. with a c,o've~.ed paLio. Mr, %~arren
z'e~i, ewed tha z-ecot~m~enda~lon~ of the staff for am~roval.
This beiPg the time ~ place as advertised, the p~blic heazing
Hr, ~'] ..... ~: p '~' ,~ ap],llcant, asked that the ~ordin9 in the
cenditions c. cn.~uct~e~ of 9a~cages' be changed to "convert}ion of
gar<..~=,, and that the condzta~n requ~r!b9 that the units b~ '~'~'-~'- ._
u~ld,~rg, ro~ind utility service from the public street be eliminated. He
f,~tt the high t.ensl.on wires prevented this from oelng do:~le. He
i!u. at he wants the undergxound service~ if it is wikhin rea:::~on. He
~vi.!l agree to cok~ply with the rest of the condi'ki~ns.
M:c. W~ren explained that the stall is not rererr~n9 te existing
along the street - they are referrLng only to the ~ ~,'; ' ' m
~ ~ ga~;en to each in,:tivi~ualp'~, spa-- '~-..1 ~ ow:~.er from t}.e ....... '
'~- %~li~(~e declared tk.~[ ?:; 2~.[~::~:~&:d this ,?~ith the uti!i%y company aad
· 2%~>/ ~'nfo~.~ed hi~ tha~ it '~uk~ in'~oiva a co~r, plicat~ ~itching pro-
~c~. and that i~hi~ p:~oc~:3~ J.~] ~:~or,~ expensive than ~ns~:a]~lJ. ng the co~-
~'~3. e~ se?~.~ice ~r~d?2ground ~J,Tiht f'~m the ~tart. He would go ~out
~-305 per home to [nmLz]l this ~?r~.,ice; the exact fiqure could not be
~[~e~ned ;~ the ~3~%i!il;y con~p~ny ~.~tated it would depend on a nu~er
of factors, such as the type of soil, etc. The $300 figure is for a
60 ' lot.
M~er Eyd~ asked how l~',ng it would take the utility company to give
him an e>:~ct figure.
~. Kiffe remarked that he has to come up with a set of plans that
~e[? can work on which would be a legitimate s~division - one that is
ready for recording; then they will t~e it. They have given him a
preliminary ffgure of $!7 a ~nning foot along the frontage on Quintard
Str,2et.
Direct(~r Warren co~%ented that if they were going to reach a conclusion
as tf3 the condition of the underground utilities based ~n costs, it
~;hould b,e based on sonlething more precise than that. The utility corn-
?any is reluctant to give any precise figure~ and the Commission is
['~ear~ng an offhand estimate on what is might be. Mr. Warren added
:%ha~ he is ccnv::nced that this figure also includes the undargrounding
of existing facilities.
~e~[t~{~)~' York q~estione~ whether the Co~d. ssion could ap~.~rove the
ante with %~{~ exception of the condition of the underground utilities.
?hie could be considered at the 'time the applici%nt s~mits his final
City Attorney Lin~er.~ maintained it would be preferable ho approve it
wJ.t~ this requiren~ent~ %~he applicant, in the interim~ coul41 check
chis out %~ith the utility conlpany and if the cost is too high, he could
ask that this b~ amended.
?I~3Ye being no further co~en'h~ either for or against~ the bearing w~s
i~3c~ ~r~d closed.
]~ba[~:~aan pro tern Guyer felt the Commission should go along with the
~:%taf.~'s recommendaticns, and should the applicant find out 'that the
,stall[a'tion of this underground service was too h~gh~ he could come
b~ck to %_he CommJ. ssion.
j.t]~ Attorney LinOart stated that it shcuid be noted for the record
that the Co~ssion will m~ke this condition for consideration of an
~]ne~t~<~ent without the requiremen't of a public hearing. It will be an
,tdminishrative ~natizer regarding the conditions~
i.~Stti'[ (Hyde-York) Variance be approved subject %o the fo]lowing condi-
believes thc ~st of this i~,sta~]~t' o~ .t., be
residential purposes be imposed by th~} developer.
~ s,.~n~t ...... to ~h=. staff
~hat .ina.~ site and architectural olaas be ~'~ ~
for approval.
The d. rive~gays shall be paved, with con~renc as a?proved by the
Engineer ~
Two offstraet parking spaces sh.:ll be prow[deal per unit - each
shall be behind t]%a front setback ~ln:~ and shall be covered.
~This variance ~ha.~l be contingent upoa Councl% ~ppr~val of ~-=xtra
wide curb cu~:s if ~lnal design so dictates.
]2. nding~{ beeas follows:
st:~.~c~ application of the zooming re~'u!ations or recluire-
That t~e '-~
' dlfflcut ul~s or
*~'~.. wo~,Id result ~n particular ' ' ~'~ unnecessary hard. sbi,~
[ncon:ist~n-h with the general purpose and intent of the
S.~ha app~c~.nc is attemptinq to provide loz~ cost housing for
i~.os~ who would o-~he~lse be der~ied housing' o~n~rchJ, p b=~c~
cf low inco~a. I~l order %o keeI, cost+3 <~own~ un,~ units
~,~lng clusterec~ in oaims~ the r~sutt ~.t which ~ ~'al~ scale
~<'~valopmant is beLng pr~,posed ir. the ~ew' zoning ordinanc.?~.
That ~%ere are exceptional ~,...i.¥um.~tna.~eo ,:r cond!tlOnS appt.~...e~:~
~:j~= property in-,~olved or to the !nteh,~sd uae o;c develop~)ent of
p. p... y same
~<,opecty that do not apply 9'eneral!y to other rc's~rt' in tbs
~:one o~ ~. r~eighborhood.
High land and const~ction costs ma~ it '9' '~"'~r]"' to provide
.,p,=el~,nc_ of side
iow cost bousin9' without this varianc:~ The "-' ~' ~ =~ e
y...rd s.=uback, would defeat the goa3 ..~ 'i:hl~:t ...... , ....... z.
That the grantin~ of a variance wil~l eot be ~ +s-{ '~
the~'lic welfare or injurious to p.~us'~'~"~-,~,'+'~ o~ imp:cerements in
--'~ zon~ or neighborhood in wl~ich %he Dr}pel'ty_ is located.
-6-
The density of deve!c~xtert e.s proposec~ would result in a density
lower than the zoninw pe~¥~i;s. The effect created would be no
different than theft of a d~zpiex developu'~ent~
That the grantin? of ~ variance will not be contrary to the
~ives of the Genera].
The General PI~in would not be adversely affected by this pro
posal~ Since the property has already been rezoned, it is
anticipated that the General Plan wii]. be altered to reflect
~ higher density than pr~sently 6asignated~
~: cector Warren ~sk~O f~r clarification of the approval in re[lard to
offst~'eet paxking, b~emb~ Hyde stated he made the tactic ~ subject
~:he recommendations of th~: staff a~:~ listed J.n dbe report~.
Park Ssl;a'tes~, inc.
2967
will ~,~ ~
.pq. icant~ {!i ~c~sssd the dif[erent typ~s cf car weshe~ in the
{in,.',e it .~i.!l be ~lexh to the service sta'hlo}~, which is e} idet!
'?enarked %hat there will be an, ?.tte}~dant on due.v ,, not ;?~}r the
ind hhe :~oJn deposit maskines.
· ,,-'~t~r=~=~ ~, Warwen. _ e~plained it would be a one-way movement. In mos?
t~e ,~--~'~a wasb%~ observed by the staff~ there is generally a -ot~..~-u~'
of cars. in this case~ the "~'-"
,, .~cK-up w~].i occur on the easement ~:
~han on the main thoroughfare,
~ir~ hattley r%~marked that in all prob~!!lty~ the stack-up will ~;.'~
place on E Street also~ ~nd this is a f ~st-moving street whereby
%~oodlawn Avenue is s.=ow-mcvl~g~
.:.lscu.~.~ed %his traffic pattern~ and Mr. Gesley,
~,he Co~f[ssion r~'
~ r~er~ is no real problem here. This traffic
rant City Engine~r~ stated '~ ~
qurn~off would not be so great as that to the Bi¢) Bear Market. Wlen
...... ~ ~ they ' ' ~ have a
the traffic increases on E S~.~eet, Wll.~ left-turn mo'~'~h~ent
t~e~.'~n be~uj no ~urther cotangent, the public hea~zing was declared
~,~ Y~ .... co~m~ented tna~ ~hen the Big Bear Ma.~Ket goes in~ th~,:
won';: know ~Wnere'' the (~t~srement st~rts and the m~Luke:t be~%ii~s. .... ThrL~
..~m is m!nlmlzed because the easement ~d on-site space can acco~mo
.:late iQ cars. He discussed hhe requirements for obtainin~ a condi-.
u':.on~! use Decrepit one of which was the use beingcomp~ ~{'~.,~.D~.e TM ~ with
~rezt, 9[r~ Yc=~c felt this u:~,~, being at the rear of a se~lce
C~y Attorney Li~{~erg exp!:-~.~Led that while seveTal of the fJndincH~
.... qulr._d for obtainin9 a eo~lditional use permit relate to the
.~Lt-~, ~ · to t.~e surrounding area~, or comoliancu~ with the regulatio~s of
~he Code~ or thc use not ad~ersety affecting the General Plan -
i~qu~re~en, is that the proposed use in this particular
~ion is a necessary or desirable use te provide a service or facility
which will contrib{~te to the general well-being of the ne,gn, bornooc~
'/hereforer it is nu, t as cut and d~y as it seen~ - that even though
~"~,n~.,.. .... uses are ..... '~ ='~e~..c as pern%itted uses in getting a conditional
. l~,[3.~=-a .... There l;ay well be
]~el~lt,. the locL~tJon is e:,~tremely 'm, ~.-~---~ ....
,72 zones whe?~e tb ~ t~,,:e of use ~ay ~oe be accet~table.
,..nb_~ Hyde ~ >1, '~ ~' c,e~ - conditions ~houtd also be ....... ~.~..~_=_d
a r. ew operation, and the '" ~ ,~-' ~,~ould b~ )~remaLure if ,.neg
';~h 3. s compltible w~tn this particu!~r are~ .... ~I,= e; ~.x,,,.~. area
~t t~]e present '-"~- a if 'hbis permit is gza:/.e~,, the u~e will
' -s . ~ ' ~' '- ' '- but
.~ own ch&racti:r on the ~Ie~.. tt wot:Id help the ~erv~.ce ,~
;~.t would a.~.so ",eot~ardlze the property ~;o ':;he souhh. '))he::~: ~ ~ '
conszdcra:~on ~" '~+'s des!r~zb[lity and
Director Warren !ema~:ke~ that it was quite possi:~!e that ~hev
;.:~e-evaluate the co~rT~ents concerr~ing t~e General Di~n ~i,~ ~'[':~fx
~.g..~.:~z2 Lil'~dbe;t*g felt this wou.~o be a reason--
~?~i~ ~t:vpe of operat:ion.
,~ ,. ........ ~ ~...o tern Guy*ex ,..~k~.4 if ~I~._ ~azf had a chance to go over the
' ' =t_z., nas revieweo
c'~nd!ti~'~ns with the applicant. ~r. Warren sazd Che - a*; '
t~e condztlo~ts with the applluan,..
...... z,~ ..... remarked tt~a't he was not suze that all of the
were r,=~.2, ewe~3 with Mr. Angus, tle is aware of the fact that Mr. Angus
1, w tzl %[ ~.,.. accept the conditions If such conditions are ze.~uired by
ordinance, b:r~ ~h=nn=z =n d~scussec, 'the conditlon of landscs, ping -
the ...... ~,~2.%i~n~ oz the applicanh ms that hhe area will be kept up, as
~ q?' b~=l~ ...... s ~!~,~uJ.d be~ but he df ..... not feel that he should l)~ r~qa~,~t- ' '"
,,on,l.z,.J.c,n,..~ use perm. it, that some of these con
;~, o~:der '~:u ~,:aln the ~' ~ ' ~'' '
' ~ ~' ~ne other
d[.t~ons be imposed upo,,~ him. As to .... conditions~ ~,~,
ir~aa, cutec~ he cannot st~:~te %J;,=~., the applic~nt:~ position would
p ...... em Guyez cozmtented ~]at the conc, ltlons were minimal
t~"e~~ are Lhe sc~e as normally imposed on any use of the 'type.
Ci. ty Attorney Lindberg noted that it %:ould take the affirmative vote
of ~' } of the Commission:ers present tonight t~, approve this
use per,mit request.
~', [~hannah~n stated he was aware of this fac't,
MaKs)ez York con~ented ,nat he now had m~xe~ emotions ,about this reque~
Ke would move that the matter be con'tinue6 until the applicanta:~,.(,c,~c,
% .~ h,cepu the ~on~l.t~ca~.. or decline to ~ccept the conditions ~s
p~sec} ~y the staff, ',[he conditions outli~ed are absu, z~te:ly mi~%im%ua
F ~:c~Ler Warren asked if the Coma~i;:-sion ccnsidered any of the ccncii~
~.,;m~. ,tuusla!~ in the opinion of the staf!~ they a~:e ~zml~ to [:hose
~.,,~ ~"c'~, /.n other si~*~ilar uses The applicant does have representa.~
~ 't%~'e%, here and that e~en J.f an objection were heard, these
~,.,a~e essential to make ~h= use as compatible as possible.
~ .... ~b'e~'.,. Rice declared that if this use l~i' going to go in under a
t~,on~! use permit, it~ h;As to be compatible with the area. He added
that n~= would also ~} a t'o see a ,.onalt3_o~ pertamnlng to the trash
~,3UC ,4yde R]_-~, 9equest be denied based cn ~he f~)llowin9
i, ~)he proposed use is not nece~saz~ at this particular location ~zince
there are ti~ree othe~ car washes within e~.sy driuing .... nge of thi~
Th~at t~'.is use will be -' :'.t~ : ~=- ~I ~',,~, general ~elf{%re of D~~
son~ ~-esi~ng' ~ ' in ~he area and in'~urlous~ to property.: and pior~{~scC
tmpro~eme~ ~.s in the viclnlty bec,~Q~.~e both ex~stJ, ng and pro~)og3fd
development is geared to establish a tourist atmosphere and :~.c~?
:.=~.]lt~ would see?~ to interrupt such an atmosphere~
)~:eco~.unen(lation - San Diego Co~u_nt_~_ Prelimina~f Regional General P~au
~irector. of Planning referred to %he General Plan map co~m~enting
~h~s was Di~..~sented at the Council Conference by Mr. Kelsay, Cbie~
~he T%egio~a! Planning Division of the San Diego County P!anning~ ~',.~a~:~-
~uent in revJ.ewin.~ this Plan,. it was determined that it v~a~ hOC [ ~
~onflict with the City's Plan, ~4r. Warren discussed the circula~ion
~.~emant of the Plan ea~d stated that this does not conform to C~',~i."
~j~t+~s~ The County is aware of this, ~-c~ is present.fy worki~q
~. ~rd recomn~en~ed c~,ar~ges,
<:tke~ than that~ the staff finds it in confo~ance with our c~
~,3. tacoma%end that you fo~ard these findings to the City Council.
(balkan pro tern Guyot commented that this is true ~- especial!-~ i~
~ ~.tter of the parks~
? ;e Co~ission briefly discussed the Plan and concurred i~hat i%'
~,~ fo~ar~ed to Coancil with comments concerning the circu!atic~ e
}~-~UC (Hy~e-Rice) Recommend that the City Council foI~ard to San
County, a resolution endorsing the Land Use element of theil
~-ecuesting that j.m(~ediate steps be taken to elim!naue the
between the ci~6culation element of %heir Plan and that of Chula
Uith the except/on of the circulation element, this Plan is not iL
~lict with the aflopted General Pla~] of Chula
~_:han e of Meetin~ Date ~ October 16 Meeting
~ ..,=..~nl~ g Warren noted that o~ October 16 ~ ~ost
the
hers will be att, endil~g -' League of California" ~ '~ ......
~;an Francisco,, The staz~ wou!cl recommend~ therefore, that
date be chan~. ~'~ to October 23, 1.67.9
~%~U.. (R~e H~ ..... , Meeting of October 16 be cnan,~.d to Octobe~
........... ~x~m ~:'~ C. ~ R~n..~haw of the fi~a o~ Wi.Les, ~¢' ~' ~ ~ ~
a~,.~or,,~,~ ~ St ~lark ~ s Lutheran Cburch~ was read
i' ,:;hzch they asked for an extension of time on thair. - ~ '~'-' ~ use
f~lj~ to .,~o._z¢c% the problem relating to an electric power ]in~
j,ndicated thma J.f :" = iuat~e~. '~as not resolved in 7 days, they
t:~e l[~.~,'~"~'~l, action' ~r,.o bri~'g about a fJ,na], resolutl.on of the matter.
N. SUC {~or~'-hy~;) ,~.Dprovax a 6 month extension of time on" ~4 ;-
Use Per,aLt No, C-.65-11~
:_~g en the proposed ne~,~ %oni~90:rdinance which will be held o3.
Septe~oer 25~. at 7:30 p.~, He ~!dded fha~t the secoc, d ~;orksho!2.
~ith ro~resentatives of the San Diego Building Contractor's
k]~o~ wo~ld be held Tuesday afternoon at 2 p,m. to review their
~:ended changes.
f~jOU~[f~NT
~SUC (Hyde-~ce) Meeting be adjourned to ~e meeting of September
-' L96'~ at 7;30 p.m, The meeting adjourned at 8~30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,