Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1969/10/06CORRECTION TO MINUTES OF CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 6, 1969 In discussion concerning an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, establishing homes for retarded children in Unclassified Uses subject to conditional use permit, Member Rice (fourth paragraph, page 2) pointed out that this is in no way an attempt to prohibit this type of facility in any zone; it is just a tool to get better control over the facility and the circumstances and the particular installation. If you look at it from the standpoint that it conceivably could be a permitted thing in any area under the right conditions, then, if anything, it expands its potential application but it does give the Commission a chance to review a particular application to see if it is proper for the area in which it is proposed. In discussion concerning an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance for a modification of lot size in R-1 zone, Member Adams stated (page ll) that his position is that under present conditions the best interests of the community are served by being competitive with our neighboring cities with respect to zoning; in order to attain that position we should establish the R-l-5 zone without special restrictions. As to the special restrictions now presented for adoption, he believes they would not be objectionable to developers except for the last item relating to open space. In case natural canyons or hills are not available and the phrase "or some other form" is to be interpreted as requiring the developer to provide space which will reduce his lot yield, then he believes it will be objectionable and will render the R-l-5 zone non-competitive. MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA October 6, 1969 The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on the above date beginning at 7 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Guava Avenue, with the following members present: Hyde, Macevicz, Chandler, Rice, Adams and Putnam. Absent: (with previous notification) Member Stewart. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Lee, Zoning Enforcement Officer Hodge, City Attorney Lindberg, and City Engineer Cole (arrived late in the meeting). SAN DIEGO COUNTY PLANNING CONGRESS Mr. Dick Brow, Planning Commissioner of Coronado, briefly discussed the Fall Dinner Meeting of the San Diego County Planning Congress which will be held at the Atlantis Restaurant on Friday, October 17, 1969. He urged the members to attend. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Macevicz-Putnam) Approval of the minutes of the meeting of September 15, 1969, as mailed. PUBLIC HEARING - Amendment to Zoning Ordinance - Establishing Home for Retarded Children in Unclassified Uses subject to Conditional Use Permit Director of Planning Warren briefly explained the proposed amendment which would remove nursing homes, homes for mentally retarded children, etc., from the R-3 zone as a permitted use and place them in Unclassified Uses, subject to a conditional use permit. On September 16, 1969, the City Council adopted such an emergency ordinance which is effective for 90 days. At the present time, six children are permitted in one of these nursing homes in an R-3 zone with no restrictions. Mr. Warren added that the staff is recommending additional standards to be met before approval is given which relate to the size of the parcel, the location of windows and play areas, and the spacing between such facilities in a neighborhood. City Attorney Lindber9 stated that the hearing tonight should be confined to whether or not nursing homes for retarded children should be taken out of the R-3 zon9 and placed in the Unclassified Uses subject to conditional use permit. The testimony should relate to this procedure and not to the existing and proposed nursing home which was the immediate problem. Mr. Lindber§ further stated that since the standards were not published in the public notice, they should be considered at a subsequent hearing. As to the use, when placed in the Unclassified Uses, it would then De allowed to go into any zone unless specifically prohibited in a particular zone; it would be subject to certain conditions that would make it compatible with the surrounding area. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Milton Link, Alpine, owner and operator of the Home for Mentally Retarded Children, 450 Flower Street, stated he purchased the property adjacent at 446 Flower Street at the time the existin9 ordinance permitted this use in the R-3 zone. He felt the ordinance should remain as is because if it is open to all zones, it may cause problems in some of the zones; however, if allowed to remain in R-3, this is a higher density zone and a logical place for the Homes. -2- 10/6/69 Mrs. Betty Bradshaw, 440 Flower Street, said it should be placed in the Unclassified Uses; in this way all the neighbors should be notified when the applicant would have to apply for a conditional use permit. City Attorney Lindberg explained the notification procedure to Mrs. Bradshaw whereby everyone within 300 feet are notified of any pending application in an area. Mrs. Helen Baxter, manager of the Estes Nursery Home, 450 Flower Street, spoke of the care of the children under their supervision. She asked that the children not be "legislated against." Member Rice felt the use should go into the Unclassified Uses for many reasons; one, that it would expand its potential and that there should be no implication that the Commission objects to these homes. City Attorney Lindberg assured Mrs. Baxter that neither the Planning Commission nor the City Council were attempting, in any way, to delete this use--they are only trying to see that the nursery home would be compatible in the area in which it is located. Mr. Carl, 164 Guava Avenue, explained that he bought his home in this area with the thought in mind that someday, if he sells it, he can do so at a profit. Putting another nursing home in this area would decrease the value of the properties along this street. He thoroughly disagrees with keeping it as a permitted use in the R-3 zone. Mr. Link questioned the application he submitted prior to the emergency ordinance. This application was approved by the Planning Department for a business license, and he questioned how an ordinance could be retroactive. Mr. Lindber§ declared he discussed this matter with the attorney representing the applicant. This matter was called to the attention of the Planning Commission and taken under study. While there is a study pending, an application can legally be held in abeyance until the matter is resolved. The City Council took the measure of adopting an amergency ordinance, and upon this adoption, there is no way of issuing a permit until the applicant applies and is granted a conditional use permit. The courts have stated they have this right; there has to be an equation of fairness to the applicant as against the general welfare of the community. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission remarked that they agreed with tile staff comments in that the use should not be a~permitted one in the R-3 zone. Member Macevicz indicated that the use needs a greater amount of space than presently available in most R-3 zones. RESOLUTION NO. 591 Resolution of the Planning Commission Recommending to City MSUC (Adams-Rice) Council the Adoption of a Permanent Ordinance Establishing a Home for Mentally Retarded Children in the Unclassified Uses subject to Conditional Use Permit -3- 10/6/69 PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - 150 K Street - Request to build on a 17' easement - B. Arrasmith Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan of the area noting the property in question, the adjacent land use and zoning. The Planning Commission denied the applicant a zone variance in August, 1968, to divide his property into four lots which would be served by this 17' easement. They felt it would cause an undue hardship on the adjoining property owners to have four families using this 17' ease- ment. T~e applicant subsequently split his lot into two parcels, and he is now requesting permission to split the remainder of his property into two more parcels. A new zoning ordinance has now been adopted which specifies that a driveway serving four units or less can be a minimum of 15 feet. The staff referred to the "Trip Generation" statistics put out by the Los Angeles Department of Traffic and related them to this proposal. The staff is recommending approval of the request and offers several conditions for approval. Mr. Warren then explained the conditions. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Delbert Arrasmith, the applicant, stated he agrees with all the conditions imposed. He explained that the property to the east is owned by a Mr. Warren who has plenty of access on both sides of his home which he can provide to the rear of the property--his land would, in no way, be landlocked. There bein9 no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. City Attorney Lindberg discussed the matter of landlocking property and stated that the adjacent property to the east was not landlocked as it was under the same owner- ship and access could be provided to the rear. Member Adams remarked that this was a good layout and a good use af the property wi th adequate room for two more homes here. The owner should not be denied the use of his land. Chairman Hyde commented on the provisions in the new ordinance allowing a property owner the right to attach units having a common boundary line; this would be done with a zero setback and suggested that this technique would be appropriate here. MSUC (Macevicz-Rice) Rariance request be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A satisfactory design for a cul-de-sac with a minimum bulb diameter of 50 feet shall be approved by the staff. 2. The existing concrete paving on the easement shall be extended to include all new areas to be paved. 3. A grading plan noting all elevations at lot corners and pad elevations shall be submitted for staff approval. 4. Any slopes shown on the grading plan shall be in accordance with Ordinance No. 1163. -4- ]0/6/69 5. All utility service shall be underground. 6. Minimum setbacks from the easement shall be 15 feet. 7. A minimum of one street tree (6' high) shall be required for each lot. 8. Elevations and plot plans of each parcel shall be approved by the staff prior to obtaining a building permit. Findings be as follows: a. That the strict application of the zoning regulations or requirements would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the regulations. The two existing lots represent an area far in excess of our minimum requirements. Failure to approve the division of land would represent a waste of property. 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. These are the only lots on K Street with less than 50 feet of frontage on a dedicated street. c. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located. The proposed development would increase the value of the neighborhood without bringing any adverse problems to the area. d. The General Plan would not be adversely affected by the approval of this variance. The General Plan encourages the development of deep lots by the dwelling group procedure. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - Rear of 628 and 632 F Street and parcel west of 632 F Street - Request for reduction of front setback from 25' to 15' - SYB~ Inc. Mr. Kenneth Lee, Associate Planner, submitted a plot plan noting the property in question and the setbacks along this block. The applicant has an R-3 lot which contains 44,400 square feet and he proposes'to construct 32 units on it; this will be a density of one unit per 1400 square feet of land area. There is a 25' setback on this property; the applicant is requesting a reduction to 20' for the building and 15' for two 6' high patio fences. The General Plan classifies F Street as a collector street and, generally speaking, the staff favors the 25' setback along this type of street; however, in this particular area, the setbacks vary, with the residential uses along this street observing a 15' setback. -5- 10/6/69 Member Rice commented that since F Street was designated as a collector street, perhaps the Commission should agree on a common setback for this block. Mr. Lee indicated that eventually the curbs and sidewalk in this area would have to be removed for the street widening--it is an 80' right-of-way and would have a 64' travelway. Director of Planning Warren remarked that the staff may want to ask the Commission to consider a modification of the setbacks along these collector and major streets. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Eugene York, President of the SYB, Inc., explained his proposed project. It will be a complex of 32 units with the second story having a balcony and the first floor having a patio area. He spoke of the need for the reduction of setback in order to allow more space for the patio areas, and the need for the 6' high fence to insure privacy for the tenants. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. MSUC (Chandler-Putnam) Variance request be approved; findings be as follows: a. That the strict application of the zoning regulations or requirements would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the regulations. A large percentage of the R-3 zoned property in the area already enjoys a compar- able setback. 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. This property should be allowed to enjoy the same setbacks as similar projects in this area. c. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located. The reduction in setback will provide for better use of the landscaped open space. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to tile objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan is not affected. Under discussion, Member Adams suggested that a masonry wall be required instead of a wooden fence, to eliminate what will become a maintenance problem. Mr. York contended that this would not be architecturally compatible with the building as the wooden fence was specifically designated to match the structure, as proposed to be built. The fence will be constructed out of rough shod cedar which is made t9 last. -6- 10/6/69 -- Member Macevicz agreed that a fence out of this material, when stained, will last up to l0 years with little or no maintenance, and it goes well with the architecture of the building. The Commission concurred that the wooden fence should be permitted. MSUC (Rice-Chandler) Staff be directed to undertake a study of the entire length of F Street (both sides) and recommend a suitable setback; also, they should take neces- sary action to bring this to a public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - 622 G Street - Request for reduction of side ~ard from 5' to 0 - L. C. Kuebler Associate Planner Kenneth Lee submitted a plot plan noting the location of this property, the adjacent land use and zoning. It will be a 132 unit apartment complex with a 32' wide entrance and exit access at the west end of the lot. This will have a covered entrance way 19 feet high. Mr. Lee showed a sketch of the proposed arch- way and remarked that the applicant is requesting permission to construct the support- ing structure adjacent to the side property line because of the shallow length of the structure--17'. The Commission recently recommended an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which provides for carports located against the side property line. The Commission could use this as a finding for justifying the variance. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Alan Kuebler, 279 K Street, showed the Commission the front elevation of the proposed archway, and stated that he spoke to the neighbors on the west side of the property who would be affected by this request. They had no objections. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission agreed that the request was a feasible one. MSUC (Putnam-Macevicz) Approval of variance request; findings be as follows: a. That the strict application of the zoning regulations or requirements would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the regulations. A zero setback will allow for complete utilization of the driveway area and better access to the parking areas. 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. Other properties in the area have structures located on the property line, extend- ing the entire length of said property line. c. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located. The support structure is limited to a 17' length along a 135' property line. d. The General Plan is not affected. -7- 10/6/69 PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - 4070 Bermuda Dunes Place - Request for reduction of side ~ard from 15' to 9' and rear sard from 40' to 23' - R. Von Willer Associate Planner Kenneth Lee submitted a plot plan noting the property in question and the requested reduction of setbacks. The applicant is proposing to construct a 4,000 square foot dwelling on this one-half acre lot. The lot varies in depth from 81 feet at the easterly end to 129 feet on the west. Under the present zoning, the applicant is required to maintain a side yard of 10% of the width of the lot and a rear yard of 40 feet. He is requesting a reduction to 9 feet for the side yard and to 12 feet on the westerly property line; also from 40' to 23' for the rear yard. The applicant bases his needs on the fact that his rear lot line abuts the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course. The staff is recommending approval of the request. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Von Willer, the applicant, stated he had no close proximity to the next dwelling and bordering on the golf course gives them plenty of open space, thus justifying his request for the setback reductions. Mr. Walter Long, 4060 Bermuda Dunes Place, stated he was one of the original developers of this subdivision. He cited other property owners in this area that have a 9' side yard, and some have a 20' rear yard. Mr. Long felt this property owner should be granted the same privilege enjoyed by other property owners in this subdivision. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Chandler declared that he lives on Lot 4 of this subdivision and is quite familiar with the property. He agreed that the only way to use the lot is to allow for the reduction of setbacks. MSUC (Rice-Putnam) Approval of variance request; findings be as follows: a. That the strict application of the zoning regulations or requirements would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the regulations. The lot has a very narrow depth at one end because of the subdivision design, requiring the house to encroach into the yard areas. 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. The existing houses were constructed under the old Zoning Ordinance which had a 25' rear yard. The side yard setback of 9' utilized by this house is similar to the majority of houses in the area. c. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located. The house and setbacks proposed will be in keeping with the area and the abutting golf course provides supplemental air space and open space. d. The General Plan will not be affected. -8- 10/6/69 PUBLIC HEARING - Appeal of Zoning Administrator's action ~rantin~ a variance to Gene Lambert - 33 Moss Street - Reduction of side yard from 20' to 10' Director of Planning Warren explained that this was a request to construct a 6' high fence in the front setback; the house fronts on Moss Street and it is a corner lot. In his capacity as Zoning Administrator, he conducted a hearing on this case on September 3, 1969, and granted the applicant a reduction of setback to 10' instead of the 7' requested. He felt the variance was necessary since the applicant has two 20' front setbacks with little usable area left. Reducing this to 10' would present no traffic hazard and landscaping, along the fence area would enhance this projection. This matter was appealed by Walter Bowering and adjacent owners and they stated seven reasons for objections; these are delineated in the staff's comments. Mr. Warren briefly reviewed these statements indicating that most were irrelevant to the request. He added that most of the objections were to the proposed swimming pool and the noise it may create. City Attorney Lindberg informed the Commission that on an appeal hearing, they should first hear the remarks of the appellants and then the applicant. lqr. Warren noted that one letter of protest was received and the staff has on hand the original letters of protest received. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Joe Robbins, Attorney representing Mr. Bowering, discussed the addition to the rear of the dwelling which he claimed was illegal since no building permit was applied for. It is for this reason (the addition) that the owner cannot now put his pool in the rear yard and must put it onto the side yard. In this subdivision, Mr. Corey, the developer, put into each deed a legal covenant stating that "no fence shall be erected within the setback line." Mr. Robbins feels this is now a contractural matter between this property owner and the adjoining residents. City Attorney Lindberg stated that the City is not legally obligated to uphold a deed restriction; however, the applicant in this matter should realize he is bound by these restrictions if his neighbors chose to exercise their rights under these covenants. Mr. Gene Lambert, the applicant, stated he was present but had no comments to make. Mrs. Joseph Choate, 25 Moss Street, resident of the area immediately to the east of this property spoke of the cement slabs being therebefore the Lamberts purchased their home--all these slabs are the same size for every home. The patio slab was enclosed before the Lamberts took possession of the house; however, they did improve it. Mrs. Choate declared that the people behind the Lamberts, the property owners to the east, and the residents immediately behind her have no objections to the pool or to the request. City Attorney Lindberg, in answer to Chairman Hyde's inquiry, claimed the addition, whether or not put in illegally, was of such long standing that no action could be taken at this time. -9- 10/6/69 Mr. Robbins submitted a letter to the Commission from an absentee property owner of the property at lOl~ Corte Maria, objecting to the request. It was his under- standing that the protestant lived directly behind the Lambert's residence. Discussion followed this remark, and it was concluded that the property was across the street on Moss, about two or three dwellings down. The Commission discussed the request. Chairman Hyde indicated that if the pool was not an issue here--just a fence request; there would be little concern over the request, and based on the new zoning ordinance, such a lO' side yard would be permitted. Member Adams felt that 20' setback was excessive and .commented that l0 feet is permitted on one side of a corner lot in new subdivisions. He felt the request was reasonable. Member Putnam asked about the block wall. Member Rice felt it should be a masonry block wall rather than a wooden fence since it is to enclose a swimming pool area. He added that there should be a requirement for landscaping to screen this wall. Director Warren stated the fence and landscaping would be subject to staff approval. MSC (Rice-Chandler) Appeal be denied and the action of the Zoning Administrator be sustained in granting a reduction of setback from 20' to lO' for 33 Moss Street, subject to the fol]owing conditions: 1. Design of the fence shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval; such fence to be a decorative block wall. 2. Suitable landscaping, subject to the approval of the Planning Director, shall be provided for that area outside the block wall. 3. The tree that is to be removed for construction of pool and fence shall be replaced with another tree in this area. Findings be as follows: a. That the strict application of the zoning regulations or requirements would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconcistent with the general purpose and intent of the regulations. The setbacks imposed on this property will not allow pool to be constructed without a variance. 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. Other corner properties in this zone enjoy lO' setbacks on one side. c. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in suc~ zone or neighborhood in which the property is located. The proposed fence will maintain a 10' setback adjacent to Corte Maria Avenue which is in keeping with an R-1 zone. -10- 10/6/6g - d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan is not affected by this request. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Rice, Chandler, Adams, Putnam, Hyde NOES: Member Macevicz ABSENT: Member Stewart City Attorney Lindberg informed the appellant of his right to appeal this decision to the City Council within 10 days. Subdivision - Palomar Gardens - Final Map Kenneth Lee, Associate Planner, submitted the final map of Palomar Gardens stating it was located on the south side of East ?alomar Street, east of Melrose Avenue, and will contain 30 single-family lots. Mr. Lee discussed the boundary adjustment which was necessary on the northerly 49 feet of the tentative map because of an error in ownership. The new boundary line extends to about 9' of the center line of Palomar Street and this still provides the sub- division with sufficient width for the improvement of East Palomar Street. Mr. Lee added that the subdivider to the north will provide the remaining right-of-width requirement. The staff is recommending approval since it conforms to the tentative map, and subject to the condition recommended by the Engineering Division. MSUC (Rice-Macevicz) Recommend approval of the final map subject to the following condition: The final map shall not be submitted for Council action until all necessary improvement plans, bonds, deeds, slope rights, letters, fees and easements, as required by the City Engineer, have been delivered. Subdivision - Tree Haven Apartments - Tentative Map Associate Planner Kenneth Lee submitted the plan of the Tree Haven Apartments stating that the owner has filed a one-lot subdivision in compliance with the State Map Act in order to convert the project into a condominium. There are 31 single-story units involved. The apartments are located on the north side of J Street approximately 310 feet west of Third Avenue. Mr. Lee explained that one of the main problems with such a project is the enforceability of the various agreements and provisions which are necessary for the upkeep and maintenance of the project. The Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions require that the owner record a declaration of the restrictions pertaining to the condominium project prior to the convenance of any project; this is commonly referred to as the C.C.& R. In this case, the staff believes the names of the Managing Agent or members of the Managing Board should be part of t~e recorded C.C.& R. record each year. The staff recommends approval of the tentative map subject to these conditions and those of the Engineering Division. Member Macevicz questioned whether they shouldn't have to comply with space between units. -ll- 10/6/69 City Attorney Lindberg stated it was an existing apartment complex and there is no problem regarding the closeness of these buildings. He explained the condominium process and how each owner will own 1/31 interest in the total property. Mr. McAllister, 8580 La Mesa Boulevard, La Mesa, owner of the property, stated he had no objections to any of the conditions being imposed. The Commission discussed the problem of the upkeep of the grounds. Mr. Lindberg explained that this was a requirement of the State law, and the enforcement is generally undertaken by the people living within the condominium. They pay fixed amounts of money for this purpose, and it has been met with good success. MSUC (Adams-Macevicz) Recommend approval of the tentative map, subject to the following conditions: 1. A copy of the C.C.&R. be filed with the Planning Department for review prior to City Council action on the tentative map and approval be given to such prior to the submission of the final map before said body. The C.C.& R. shall include the names of the Managing Agent or members of the Managing Board each year. 2. Drainage from the end of Landis Avenue shall be collected and carried in a con- crete lined channel or pipe to the existing inlet located at the westerly boundary of the subdivision. The manner in which this is accomplished is subject to detailed approval by the City Engineer at the time of submission of improvement plans. Also, any drainage easements as deemed necessary by the City Engineer -- shall be provided. 3. The installation of a street light may be required on J Street. (Continued) Amendment to Zonin9 Ordinance - Modification of lot size in R-1 Zone Director of Planning Warren stated the public hearing on this matter was closed at the last meeting. The Commission asked the staff to clarify the guidelines for application of these zones and these have been rewritten with minor changes. One addition was the words "and hills" in the last sentence which would now read " .... provide open space in the form of natural canyons and hills, or some other fo rm .... Member Adams questioned this commenting that these restrictions would not take it out of being competitive with our neighboring cities. Member Rice remarked that he is not sure the Commission actually desires to be competitive--there is no reason to be. He added that they could not get away from the need of having some open space, and cited conditions on Otay Mesa in San Diego whereby the people living on 5,000 square foot lots are complaining about the lack of open space, recreational facilities, and public facilities in general. Member Chandler stated he was one of the violent objectors in the beginning about the lack of controls in the 5,000 square foot zone, and he believes this present ordinance - is now as well-done as possible. -12- 10/6/69 - Director of Planning Warren comment~ that he met with three builders last week, and they stated they would like to have a blanket R-l-5 zone. These is no question but that every subdivider that comes into the City now will request this size lot and as many of them as they can get; it will be difficult to administer this. However, the only time the Commission would get a subdivision wi th the 5,000 square foot lots net is on level terrain, and there is not too much of this type of area left in the City. The Commission held a discussion on the aspects of granting the 5,000 square foot lots. Chairman Hyde remarked that the Commission can always reconsider their action if they find that this will not work out. MSUC (Putnam-Chandler) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to RESOLUTION NO. 592 City Council the Adoption of an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance for the modification of Lot Size in the R-1 and R-2 Zones PUBLIC HEARING - Amendment to Zoning Ordinance - Establishing Si~n Restrictions in the "D" Zone Director of Planning Warren explained that the City Council adopted an emergency ordinance on August 12, 1969 which established standards for signs with the "D" zone. The regulations were not put into the new zoning ordinance as it is deter- mined that signs will be regulated by underlying zones and these are still under study by the staff. The emergency ordinance is effective for 90 days, and the staff is now recommending approval of a permanent ordinance. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. There being no comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. MSUC (Adams-Rice) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to RESOLUTION NO. 593 City Council an Ordinance Amending Section 33.601 of Chapter 33 of the City Code by Adding Thereto Sign Restrictions in the "D" Design Control District (Continued/ - Amendment to Zonin~ Ordinance - Administrative Procedures Section Director of Planning Warren briefly explained the sequences of this matter. A number of workshop sessions have been held on this and a public hearing was conducted. The Section is ready for adoption, but the R-1 section needs slight modification and rewording which the City Attorney can do; there would, of course, be no change in substance. Chairman Hyde commented that if there is a lack of agreement on any section, the staff can bring this back to the Commission for clarification. Director Warren referred to one matter of controversy in this Section which dealt with the findings for a variance. The Commission was given a set of findings both by the City Attorney and by Member Adams. Member Adams indicated he was satisfied with the City Attorney's findings, but finds them to be too lengthy. City Attorney Lindberg stated that the Commission understands that the findings that -13- 10/6/69 are essential are stated in a variety of ways, and they all state the same thing. What he did was to combine these findings in a rather lengthy statement in what would be acceptable in court; however, he has no complaint whatsoever about Adams' findings. The Commission discussed various ways of combining the findings of both Member Adams and the City Attorney. MSUC (Macevicz-Chandler) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending RESOLUTION NO. 594 to City Council an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Establishing an Administrative Procedures Section Request for vacation of a 10' portion of public ri~ht-of-wa~, at 295 C Street - R. Lynds Director of Planning Warren explained the request for the vacation of a portion of the street. He submitted a plot plan noting the area in question as adjacent to the north side of C Street, bordering Third Avenue Extension; the lot has 189' of frontage. The applicant has submitted a request to vacate a 10' strip extending the entire length of the site. If approved, this would leave 20' on the north half of the street. The Division of Engineering has stated that this l0 foot area is not necessary for public improvements, and recommends approval of said vacation. The staff concurs with this opinion. MSUC (Putnam-Macevicz) Recommend to City Council the approval of the vacation of the 10' portion of public right-of-way at 295 C Street. Request for vacation of a portion of right-of-way on Third Avenue - A. B. Ellin~ton Director of Planning Warren referred to the findings of the Division of Engineering for this request to vacate street right-of-way on Third Avenue (formerly Third Avenue Extension).. They state that the property was purchased as a portion of Third Avenue Extension, apparently for slope rights, and has since been graded down to street grade, thus ending the need for the area for slopes. The staff concurs with the Engineering Division that the request be approved. MSUC (Rice-Chandler - Recommend to the City Council the approval of a vacation of right-of-way on Third Avenue; the parcel is excess and is not needed for public right-of-way. Request for extension of time on variance - 295 D Street - B. Gentry This is a request for an extension of time on a variance granted in March 1969 for a reduction of front setback from 25' to 15' for property at the northeast corner of Third Avenue and D Street. Director Warren stated that staff recommends approval of the request. - MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) Approval of an extensio~ of time for 6 months. -14- 10/6/69 To be set for hearing - Rezoning from R-2 and R-3 to C-O "P" - Property along south side of H Street between Fourth Avenue and Fig Avenue Director of Planning Warren explained that this was a request of the City Council as a result of their approval of a rezoning request to C-O for the four lots on the southeast corner of H Street and Fig Avenue. They asked the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing to consider the C-O zone for the remainder of the R-3 frontage on H Street between Fourth and Fifth Avenue. The staff feels it would be appropriate to consider additional area in this immediate vicinity to attain more uniformity of zoning. Also, the "P" District should be added which would assure that consolidation of the lots be required--this would assure professional office developments on parcels of sufficient size to accommodate them. MSUC (Rice-Chandler) A public hearing be called for the meeting of October 20, 1969, to consider a change of zone to C-O "P" for property along both sides of H Street between Fourth Avenue and Fig Avenue, as delineated by the Planning Director. San Diego CountS Planning Congress The Commissioners sta~ngtheir intention to attend this meeting were: Hyde (1); Adams (1); Rice (1). Members Macevicz and Chandler indicated they would not be able to attend. Request for Reduction of Setback - 276 Seavale Street Mr. Zachary, residing at 276 Seavale Street, requested a reduction of side yard setback on his property to 5 feet. City Attorney Lindberg ruled that the Commission cannot act on this and the applicant must first proceed to the Planning Department and file an application for a variance. The Commission cannot take any testimony relative to a variance or change of zone regulations until after they give notice of public hearing. Director Warren asked the applicant to come into the Planning Department during the week and the staff will be glad to help him. Architectural Approval on 4070 Bermuda Dunes Place Director of Planning Warren explained that the Commission has just approved a variance for a reduction of setbacks on this lot. At this time, the staff would like to have them give consideration to the architectural and site plan of the proposed dwelling. It will be a single-story structure oriented toward the golf course. The entire length of the front of the dwelling will have no windows. The materials used will be stucco with shake shingle roof. Member Macevicz suggested some form of landscaping be required for the front of this dwelling to relieve the stark appearance. The Commission concurred. MSUC (Rice-Chandler) Architectural and site plan approval for 4070 Bermuda Dunes Place SUbject to the requirement that landscaping be provided for the front of the -15- 10/6/69 dwelling since no windows are contemplated for this side. The landscaping plans to be approved by the Planning staff. Silhouette Studio - E Street Director Warren stated that two weeks ago, Member Macevicz questioned the construction taking place at 109 E Street. This is the residence of Virginia Loria and she was granted a Home Occupation Permit by the Planning Commission to conduct a reducing salon out of her home. The staff investigated the premises last week and found the applicant had a portion of her front yard area paved--this was done perhaps for additional parking or for turn-around purposes. There is no way in which the staff can control this, but due to the number of front yards being paved, some control should be considered. Dwellin~ on Fourth Avenue and J Street Member Macevicz discussed a recent addition to a dwelling on the northeast corner of Fourth Avenue and J Street. He wondered about the architectural compatibility of this addition--an apartment built over the existing garage. Director Warren stated the staff was surprised at this construction also, but there is no way in which they could regulate or control this. Si~n Ordinance Chairman Hyde asked the Director to have a status report on the sign ordinance for the next meeting of the Planning Commission. Workshop Meetin~ Director Warren remarked that a workshop meeting will be held on Monday, October 13, 1969 in the Conference Room. This is a holiday for the City employees. The City Attorney stated he would check out the legality of this. Meeting of October 27~ 1969 Director Warren declared that a regular meeting of the Commission is being called on October 27. Applications for this meeting must be submitted to the staff this week, if no applications are filed, the staff will recommend at their meeting of October 20 that the Commission eliminate this meeting. Field Trips Planning Director Warren stated that, in the future, the Commission field trips will be held on Thursday afternoons instead of Fridays. -16- 10/6/69 ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Macevicz-Putnam) Meeting be adjourned to the workshop meeting of October 13, 1969 in the Administrative Conference Room, Civic Center, beginning at 7 p.m., and to the meetings of October 20 and October 27, 1969. Respectfully submitted, Secretary