Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1966/11/07 MINUTES OF A REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA November 7, 1966 The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on the above date af 7:00 PoMo in fha Civic Center~ Council Chamber~ with fha following members present: Sfewarf~ Yark~ Gregson~ Ric¢~ Adams and Guver. Absent: None. Also present: Director of Planning Warren~ Associate Planner Mangan¢ili~ Junior Planner Lee~ City Attorney Lindberg, and Principal Engineer Harshman. Director Warren indicated that member Johnson had submitted a letter of resignation. APPROVAL OF MINU~ES MSUC [Adams-York) Minutes of October 24, 1966 be approved~ as mailed. PUBLIC HEARING - Prezonin~ - Property i5 Acres) af Northwest Corner of Hilltop Drive and Quintard Street, County R-I-B to R-3 fo R-3 Director of Planning 'Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the requested prezoning and the adjacent zoning and land use. The area encompasses approximately 5 acres which has been approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission. On May g~ 1966 the Commission commended R-I prezoning for the properfyf fha City Council subsequently voted $-2 fo override the Commission and prezone the property to R-3. The motion Failed fo carry since four votes were needed to reverse fha decision of the Cammissiono At fha last m¢¢fing~ the Commission approved a new ordinance which eliminates the extraordinary vote requirement by the Cauncilj this is the reason fhaf this matter is now beck fo the Commission. Member Gu¥¢r questioned whether there were any changes since fha request was before them in May. Mr. Warren noted there were none except the property owner fo the south has submitted a request fo prezone his property fo R-3. Member Guyer then questioned fha proposed zoning for this property according fo the General Plan. Director Warren noted if was med um density - fypicall R-lo This being the time ~nd the pJac¢ as adverfised~ fha public hear ng was declared opened. Mr. George Edwards~ owner o~ the property on the northwest corn¢r of Hilltop and guintard Street stated fhaf the Engineering Department created a flood condition on their property when the improved fha Hilltop Drive from 2t tO BI Of fill was put in~ creating a ttpocket~ on their tend. Mr. Edwards declared there was nothing further fo da with this property except to redevelop if for multiple-family. Mr. Nicholas Besker~ owner of the adjacent property said fhaf he fried fo get a grade level from the City of Chula Vista a few years ago when he built his home, but could not because his property was in fha County. Mr. Besker then noted fha size of the lots and fha existing uses of each on Quintard Sfreef~ remarking that they were not conducive fo residential use af this time. He added that he was in fha general contracting business. There being no further comment~ either for or against, fha hearing was declared closed. Member Guyer said he was not in favor of creating any more R-3 zoning islands in this area. Member York questioned how this prezoning fo R-3 from R-I would alleviate the condition the applicants talked about. Chairman Stewart commented fhaf this was a question of satisfying the personal desires of fha property owners - they feel fha R-3 zoning would justify their bringing in fha fill to develop this property. Mr. Stewart added th~f fha prezoning must meet the public needs and be compatible with fha surrounding areas. He further added fhaf he objects fo placi a small island of R-3 in an area fhaf should be MSUC (Adams-Guyer) Prezoning request fo R-3 be denied and a recommenda- tion made for R-I zoning for fha following reasons= I. The General Plan designates this area as medium density residential which corresponds fo the R-I classification. Abutting this property to fha north is a parcel on which an R-I subdivision is planned° 3. The Planning Commission and fha City Council recently denied R-3 zoning in this area (Palomar and Second1 and there appears fo be even less jusfiflcafion for R-3 af fha subject Iocafiono 4. If this request is approved, a spot zone would be created since, upon completion of the proposed annexations fo the north and soufh~ this property would be surrounded on three sides by R-I or R-I-B zoning and uses and on fha fourth side by a school, a permitted use in the R-I zone. Mr. Edwards questioned what would happen fo their annexation if they did not get the prezoning they requested. City Attorney Lindberg stated that the Local Agency Formation Commission approved this annex- arian and their Commission does not have control over fha zoning; fhaf this matter goes to fha City Council for final action. PUBLIC HEARING - Conditional Use Permit - 435 'H" Street Irearl ~h, omas ,E.,.Garci.n -Hos, pifal in R-3 Zon, e Director of Planning Warren stated fhaf a telephone call was received from the aonlic~nt~s representative stating he would like fo withdraw fha application for conditional use permit and variance on this request. He indicated a letter would be sent; hawevfr~ no letter has been received. - 2 - Chairman Stewart noted fha applicant was not present and questioned whether it would be proper fo continue this or File if. '- City Attorney Lindberg asked if fha applicant was notified of fha hearing tonight. Mr. Warren declared he was and that the staff talked fo his representative last Thursday and he stated that for various reasons, fha applicant does want fo withdraw his request; this is not down in writing however. City Attorney Lindberg suggested the Commission file these applications - if af any time fha applicant does want fo reinstitute, if can be brought back fo fha Commission. MSUC (Guyer-Adams] Applicafian be filed. P,UBLIC ,HEARING - Variance - 435 "H" Street (rear) - Thomas E. Garcin- Request fo Build Four-Story Building in R-2 Zone MSUC (Gu¥¢r-Adams] Application be filed. PUBLI.C HEARL,NG - Variance ~ Lot 3t Ro~an Hil,ls~ on Ro~an R. oad Sentinel S,~.vin~s and Loan Association - Request for Reduction in Frant Setback. The application was read in which a r~quesf was made for a reduction in franf yard setback from 157 fo IOTon Bonita Road and fram 257 fo 187 on Rogan Road for fha purpose of constructing a dwelling. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting fha location and staflng it has frontage on three sides in an R-I zane. The applic- ant is requesting a setback reduction on Bonita Road from 157 fo IO'; however, there has been a dedication of part of this right-of-way for sidewalk purposes which makes fha existing t1~'. Mr. Warren then noted on fha plot plan the requested setback reduction on Rogan Road and the point at which fha dwelling will be consfrucfedo Member Guyer noted there was quite a grade af this property. Director Warren agreed, but added fhaf the home on fha property fo the west observes fha setback. This being the time and place as advertised, fha public hearing was opened° Mr. Alfred Schneider, representing the applicant, stated fha house will cost about $35~OOO fo $40~OOO and be of a ranch-type construction. They propase fo build three homes in this area~ but this is the only lot on which they need fha reduction in sefbackso Mr. Charles Ellis~ Attorney representing Max Lassman~ owner of fha lot abutting fha southern end of the lot in quesfion~ declared that due fo Mr. Lassmants business commifmenfs~ his client hadn't had time fa File a formal petition of protest fa this requesf~ and subsequently came fo Mr. Ellis7 office af 3:30 P° M. this ~ffernaon. Because of this short - 3 - period of fime~ Mr. Ellis added~ he too hasn,t had time to gather enough information for a petition fo present fo the Commission. He asked that the Commission grant them a continuance of two weeks in which time they would be able fo gather additional facts in opposition fo the zone variance. Mr. Ellis further added that they have reason to believe that many of the surrounding property owners ere in opposition fo this requesf~ and fhaf some of them were not notified in time fo prepare a petition in opposifiono Chairman Stewart asked what this would be predicated upon since fha notices were mailed out almost two weeks ago. Mr. Ellis indicated that some notices were not mailed out until last Wednesday~ and that Mr. Lassman talked fo a few of fha property owners who indicated fhelr opposition fo him. Mr. Ellis further added fhaf they ere not asking For a denial of the request now~ merely a contin- uation of a reasonable period of time fo give them enough flm¢ fo gather additional facts which may even asslsf fha Commission in arriving at a decision on this issue° Chairman Stewart felt fhaf if would be interesting fo know what his client feels would be objectionable -fhaf if must be something con- crete - end fhaf fha Commission is entitled fo know what this inform- arian is before they rule on fha request for a confinuanc¢o Mr. Ellis stated fhaf the basic contention wes fhaf this home will not be such a home es those presently built in the area~ value-wise; - also fha fact fhaf this home proposed fo be built on this lot with the reduction of setbacks might reduce fha value of fha surrounding property - that these are facts which they would like fo consider before fha Commission renders a decision on the matter. Chairman Stewart commented that if there was any infringement into the side yard so fhaf if fends fo intrude on fha open area of the next door neighbor then the objection would be readily discernable. How- ever~ this request does not intrude into fha side yard on either side and good reasons for a continuance have not been cifedo Mr. Schneider noted fhaf an adjacent property owner was present tonight who called him and asked him to put up a grape stake fence between his property and this lot which they agreed fo do. Mr. Fred Couture, 2G Bonita ~oad, stated he lives fo fha west of this lot and is directly affected by this request. He noted fhaf fha rear yard of this house will face fha front of his home~ and for this reason he asked fhaf a fence be installed on this property line. He added that five of his neighbors called him and stated they had no objection fo this request because of fha size of fha home would be in keeping with the existing homes. Member Guyer asked if Mr. Lassmants property abuts this lot. Mr. Ellis said if did --a few feet of the southerly end of fha lot adjoins his client's property. - 4 - City Attorney Lindberg noted that a request has been made for a continuance and fhaf the Commission should ask fha applicant if he feels he wants this continuance. Mr. Schneider claimed if would set them back~ because they are now ready fo go; a delay now would set them back af least 6 weeks. Member Adams remarked fhaf he could see no reason whatsoever fa grant a delay - that he could not imagine any facts fhaf would be brought back fo the Commission of which they are not now aware. MSUC (Adams - Gregson) Request for continuance be denied and fha Commission proceed with fha request. There being no further commenfs~ either for or againsf~ the hearing was declared closed. Member Guver stated he is abstaining from the rest of fha hearing because he lives within 300 feet of this lot. Dr. Shaw~ 270 Rogan Road~ pointed out fhaf he lives directly south of Mr. Lassman~s property and is against this variance request because he believes fha structure they plan fa build will be of lesser value than those now existing on Rogan Road. He commented that he was notified of this hearing last Wednesday. MSUC (Adams-Rice)(Member Guyer abstaining) Request be approved for a reduction in front yard setbacks from II~t from the existing right-of- way line fo lOt an Bonita Road and from 25~ to 18~ on Rogan Road subject fo fha following: I. A solid wood or masanry fence be cansfructed along fha westerly property line starting af the setback line est- ablished by fha Commission af Bonita Road and extending south fo meet fha existing fence of fha property directly to the west (minimum height of 5 Feet). The type of fence shall be approved by the Planning staff. Findings be as follows: I. That there are pracflcal differences and unnecessary hardships within the meaning of Ordinance 398 as amended which would result in the strict compliance of the pro- visions of said ordinance. So stated as delineated below. 2. That there are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to fha property herein involved or fha intended use thereof that do not apply generally fo property or class of uses in the same zone. The triangular shape of the laf with street frontage on three (3i sides aF fha lot requires reduction in setbacks fo build. 3. The granting of such variance is necessary for fha pre- servefion of the substantial property right of fha applicant. Without this variance, fha applicant would be deprived of building a house large enough fo be in keeping with fha area and still make Functional use of the lato 4. The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to fha public welfare of injurious fo fha property improvements in fha zone or district in which said property is located. - since the Bonita Road set- back will be af the fop oF a IaT high bank and only~ small portions oF fha house actually project into fha front setbacks. Chairman Stewart informed fha opponents that they had I0 days in which fo File an appeal fo fha City Council iF they so desire. Mr. Max Lassman asked if he could speak. Chairman Stewart stated fha hearing was closed and fha motion for approval was made~ but the Commission would llsfen fo any oF his commenfso Mr. Lassman remarked he wouldn't now voice any comments since the matter wes closed -fhaf he didntf get a chance fo speak before. PUBLIC HEAR, lNG - Variance - 290 "K" Street - Frank Whi,f, fin~fon Request for R-3 Use In 'R-I ,Zone and Reduction in Sefbac~so The application wes read in which a request was made For a reduction in front yard setback from 12~ fo 12t end For a reduction in rear yard setback From IS~ to zero~ also For permission fo construct a 20- unit apartment building on this property zoned Director oF Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting fha locations adjacent land use and zoning. He stated fha applicant would be using the 32 Foot easement west of this site for parking purposes. On March 22s 1966~ fha Commission approved a variance For this site For 25 units; this variance has since expired and fha applicant is now before you with a new request fo build 20 units. Mr. Warren then explained fha building layout noting fhaf the buildings would be two-story and that fha applic- ant has e 40-year lease from the owner oF fha easement to have permanent use oF this °as°menlo The staff recommends approval subject fo certain condifionso Mr. Warren then proceeded fo delineate and explain the conditions° This being fha time and piece as adverfiseds fha public hearing was opened. Mr. Frank Whiffingfon~ fha applicants explained that he did not have fha lease ef fha time he was before the Commission in March~ howevers their approval was conditioned upon it. He now has a 40-year lease fo use the 32-Foot easement - this is For ingress end egress onlys no permanent structure can be built on it° City Attorney Lindberg noted that 40 years is about fha life expectancy of a building nows and fhaf this was · reasonable lease° Mr. Whittington noted that his request wes For 20 units; however, the Final plans are coming up with only 19 units. He stated that he would keep this project entirely separate From that oF his multiple-Family development fo the east. - 6 - There being no Further commenf~ either For or againsf~ the hearing was declared closed. Member Guyer observed that in view of the Fact that this request had been before the Commission previously and in view of the Fact that if is a better plan particularly with the ingress and egress~ he is in Favor of if. Member Adams noted the density of fha proposed units would average approximately 1500 square Feet per unit. Member York commented this was the only logical use of the property - that if would not be feasible fo develop if R-I in view of the commercial zoning adjacent fo if. MSUC IYork-Cuyer] Approval of request subject fo fha following conditions: I. Detailed plans be submitted fo fha Planning Staff prior fo issuance of a building permit For the Following.' Elevations and Floor plans For all buildings. b. Detailed site plan. Detailed landscape plan. d. The 32t easement to the west of said property is available For a minimum of 40 years For this parcel and is used in conjunction with the approved plan; the easement to be paved according to standards approved by fha City Engineer. 2o That all signs shall be in conformance with fha R-3 regulations - fha design and location of said sign shall appear on the elevation and plot plan drawings. 3. A minimum of two i2) street trees fo be planted in the park- way with fha remaining area fo be paved with concrete fo match that adjacent fo fha easf~ subject fo Planning staff approval. 4. The south end of fha property be fenced 5t high (Minimuml. Findings be as Follows: I. That there are practical differences and unnecessary hard- ships within the meaning of Ordinance No. 398 as amended which would result in fha strict compliance of the provisions of said ordinance. So stated as delineated below. 2o That there are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable fo the property herein involved or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally fo property or class of uses in fha same zone. The property is adjacent fo commercial property on the west and south and multiple- Family on fha east. The property is of such size and con- Figuration that if would be impractical fo develop R-I because of adjacent uses. The setback reduction From 15~ fo 0t in the rear abuts commercial property which already enjoys a O~ sideyard setback af this location. --7 # 3. The granfing oF such variance is necessary for fha preservafion o~ fha substantial property right of fha applicant. Without this variance~ fha applicants are essentially denied privilege granted adjacent property owners. If this were corresponding fo a commercial rear yards no inequity would exist. The applicant would be required to malnfain an unreasonably large unusable area. 4. The granting of such variance will not be materially detri- mental fo fha public welfare or injurious fo fha property im- provements in fha zone or district in which said property is located, since a similar use of property is existing on fha adjacent parcel fo the east and bec,use of the explained relationship fo adjacent property. ~HB, DIVISION..,,'. Fle, lr Annex Director of Planning Warren submitted fha tentative map of fha Flair Annex subdivision noting fha location as south of the San Diego Gas and Electric Companyls right-of-way, north of Riensfra Street and adjacent on fha east fo Unit #1 of Princess Manor subdivision. The portion of Melrose Avenue now under construction by Princess Park Ester,ss Inc. traverses this subdivision. The subdivision will con- fain 68 R-I lots on approximately 17 acres of lend. The staff would recommend approval subject to certain condlfions. Mr. William Harshmans Principal Engineers submitted and explained fha conditions of fha Engineering Division. Mr. Dennis Wiffman, fha developers stated he is in agreement with all of the recommendations. MSUC [Guyer-Adamsl Recommend approval of tentative map subject fo fha following conditions= I. Lots 7 through 13 of Unit ~2 shall be redesigned fo ¢limlnafe fha pan-handle frontage on ILar I0. 2. The specific type o~ plant material for slope planting shell be approved by the Director of Planning. 3. A triangular area comprised o~ a portion of Marl Court and those smell parcels designated "Not a Part" are not currently under fha ownership o~ fha subdivider. Prior fo Council consideration aF a final map of any portion o~ the subject tentative maps if will be necessary that fha specified triangular area be obtained in such manner as fo permit dedication fo fha public. 4o Portions of Lots 20, 5Is $2, 53 and 54 are not currently under fha ownership of the subdivider. If such portions cannot be acquired by fha subdividers if will be necessary to revise and resubmit Units 2 and 3. - 8 - 5. Curb redil at ell intersections with Melrose Avenue shall _. be 30 feet, Property line radii shell be concentric with curb radii wherever possible. 6. Both legal and physical access shell be provided for main- tainance of the lined channel east of Melrose Avenue. 7. Installation o~ a standard cul-de-sac af the westerly end o~ "A" Street and fha elimination of Lot I0 are recommended. 8o The standard note concerning compaction fasts in roadway fills shall be considered as applicable fo this map. 9. The subdivider shell provide drainage facilities in vicinity of Lots 19 and 33 as approved by fha City Engineer. 10. Per agreement with fha developers of Princess Manor~ Melrose Avenue is to be graded and improved with ribbon pavemenfo it shell be the responsibility of fha developers o~ Flair Annex fo complete fha improvement o~ Melrose Avenue from the northerly boundary o~ Princess Manor Unit #7 to fha southerly curb line of Quinfard Avenue. The improvement shell include resur~acing fha strip pavement with I~ A.Co paving material following installation o¢ all underground street facilifleso PUBL. i~ H£.~RING ~ Proposed .Ord. in.~nc¢ Re~lefin~ Movin~ .and .Fles.hin~ Signs. Director of Planning Warren explained the proposed new ordinance, stating this particular section wes taken from the new comprehensive zoning ordinance. This will apply generally to all commercial zones. The reason this cema about was b¢caus¢~ ~rom time to fime~ comments were received from one or two members of fha City Council end a number of other p¢opl¢~ quesfionlng the size end lighting of certain signs they see going up. They cell and ask whether fha staff has any control over these ~leshing signs. The Traffic Council considers such signs an interference with their traffic devices end a detraction fo drivers of vehicles. From a Planning sfandpoinf~ Mr. Warren continued~ such signs by themselves in a middle of a block do serve fha purpose o~ attracting etfention~ however, when a great number of them appear along fha sfreef~ they set up a competition among one another fhaf seems fo defeat this purpose. For this reason~ the staff recommends fhaf this ordinance be adopfedo Member Guyer noted there was no one present in the audience fo hear this matter. This being fha time end piece as advertised, fha public hearing was opened. There being no commenf~ either {or or egainsf~ fha hearing was declared ciosedo -9 - Member Guyer noted that fha League o{ California Cities went on record as {orating this type of ordinance. Director Warren commented that he was asked what this ordinance would da to the existing signs, He pointed out that it pertains fo new signs only that this particular ordinance does not have an abatement procedure, Howevers the proposed new zoning ordinance does, City Attorney Lindberg stated fhaf in this areas fha problem of abatement is far less a problem than other things fha Commission might considers and that the City will certainly be moving fo abate these nut sanc¢s.~! RESOLUTION No, 431 Recommendation of the City Planning Commission recommending to City Council an Ordinance amend- ing Chapter 33 of fha City Code by adding thereto MSUC(Guyer-Rice) a New Section 33,61,3 Relating fo fha Elimination of Moving and Intermittent or Flashing Signs throughout fha City, R.~P.ORT OF .FINDINGS - Appeal by Bollenbacher & Kallan of Pl~nni.n.[ Commission Acfio~'~enyiq.~ ~equesf For Variance R'educfid~ in HR.u.s.~ ~i..ze :Soufh. wesferq.Cqlle~e, Es[ate, s. Director of Planning Warren referred fo the report of findings mailed fo each Commissioner, This concerns an appeal by Bollenbacher & Kelton of the Comm issionts denial of their variance for permission fo construct homes in their subdivision which would have square foofages of 1106s 1116 and 1123, MSUC (Guyer-York) Approval of report of findings fo be forwarded fo fha City Council, RECO~E .F~ATION - Proposed Mah.y~s SweRfwater V~lle¥ ,Annexation Director of Planning Warren commented fhaf this item and fha next may actually be superfluous, A new procedure is being set up whereby since fha Commission has already approved fha prezoning on these two annexationss essentiallys fha annexations themselves are approved~ howevers to dates fha new procedure is not on record so Commission approval for these two items is necessar¥o This particular annexation concerns an irregularly-shaped ~,88 acre parcel of A-3 (ii County- zoned land 'located at fha northwest corner of Bonita Road and Bonita Mesa Road and adjacent fo fha proposed Inland Freeway° MSUC (Gregson-Rice) Recommend approval of annexafiono RECOMMENDATION - Propos.~.d Poggi Canyon Annexatio,.q No, ~ This annexation concerns a rectangular-shaped vacant 20-acre parcel IO- of unzoned land located east of the proposed Inland Freeways south of Greg Rogers Parks and abutting the northeast boundary of the recently approved Flair Subdivision (Formerly Les Chafeaux), MSUC (York-Rice) Recommend approval of annexation. TO BE SET FOR HEARING - Esfabl.i,sh,menf of 5peciFi,q, Plan Lin, es- Portion of Tidelands Aven~e 'and "E" S~reef West of 'lnfer, s,[a, fe ~O5 Director of Planning Warren stated fhaf fha State Planning Lows provided For a procedure in fha event a General Plan has been adopted wherebys Following public hearingss fha Commission and Council can adopt specific plan lines For proposed streets. The objective is fo keep development out of the path of these streets so that when the time comess if will be possible to acquire them. In the case of Tide- lands Avenues fha City Adminisfratar has asked the Planning staff to consider establishing fha precise specific plan line between "G" Street and the National City limit line. The staff is also asking fha Cammission fo consider taking nE~ Streets even fhaugh if is obvious where if would gas between the E~sferly line of Tidelands Avenue and the present westerly ferminuso This should be set For hearing and prior fo adoption there will be precise Engineering drawings. City Attorney Lindberg stated that in fha adoption of fha General Plans fha Commission has adopted certain major sfreefss certain collector sfreefss but none have been precisely engineered in fha General Plan which are adopted by resolufiono Subsequent fo fhaf actions these major streets and collector streets can be precisely engineered and fha plan offered fo fha City Council upon recommendation of fha Commission For adoption by ordinance. This would mean fhaf they are Fixed and no variation can be made From these unless fha ordinance itself was amended. There is a clear recognition fhaf fha City must plan fha great interlocking network of streets in order fo get people From point ~A" fo point "B" in any urban communifyo It is not poss- ible fo utilize this fo fake fha property - if doess howevers provide fha advance notice fo developers fhaf fhls is fha alignment fhaf is going fo be required when fha land is subdivideds and as in any sub- divisions fha developer is required fo dedicate and improve this sfreefo This gives fha developer fha precise alignment fo have in mind when they prepare their plans For fha development of a certain area° Director Warren clarified his previous remarks fo emphasize fhaf this gives fha staff a chance fo guide fha developer in developing his property. MSUC (Guyer-York) Resolution of fha City Planning Commission Calling a Public Hearing For November 2Is 1966~ fo RESOLUTION No. 432 Consider fha Establishment of Specific Plan Lines For a Portion of Tidelands Avenue and "E" Street West of Interstate ~05 - II - DISCUSSIQN,- Proposed C-V, Z,one Director oF Planning Warren declared that this proposed ordinance has been discussed at a workshop session and the Commission Felt that this section should be taken out of fha new zoning ordinance and pushed ahead of fha other zones. The largest concern on fha part of fha Commissioners was fha treatment of signs. The staff has suggested some changes in this proposed zone which has been mailed fo fha Commission. The City Attorney furnished the staff with a copy of San Diego's R-5 zone which is pretty much their tourist-commercial zone and if was concluded fhaf some of their recommendations were good and some were incorporated into this C-V zone. Chairman Stewart Felt this matter shauld be set for hearing and if something comes up fhaf cannot be resolved af fhaf times fha hearing can be continued until a future meeting. Director Warren noted fhaf a workshop meeting will be held on the 14th with Mr. Syd Williams coming down. The afternoon session will be primarily for fha new memberss fo acquaint them with these new ordin- ances and then fha evening session will be for fha entire Commission. Member Adams questioned whether this would be fha best way fo handle If - if if is set For hearing before fha entire Commission agrees upon ifs then it would be difficult fo convince the people af fha hearing fhaf if should be adopted. Chairman Stewart asserted fhaf fha Commission could continue fha hear- ing if there was too much disagreement. City Attorney Lindberg commented fhaf fha Commission could get some good ideas From people who are interested in this zoning, City Attorney Lindberg discussed fha new proposed zones stating fhaf fha staff should urge all interested parties fo attend this hearing. Chairman Stewart suggesfecLfhaf fha Star-News should be contacted fo write up a special news item on if. Director Warren indicated fhaf he would contact fha Broadway Associaflon and get their comments on if, RESOLUTION NO. 433 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Calling a Public Hearing for November 2Is 1966 fo MSUC( York-Gregsan) Consider fha Adoption of fha C-V Zone. Letter,,fr, Rm Mr. R,. Case~ The Commission discussed fha letter received from Mr. Robert Casey asking the Commission fo withdraw his application for rezonin9. In the leffera he complimented fha staff for their valuable help and advice in saving him time and money on his project. h,E)T ICES Director Warren discussed the present system of mailing notices to property owners in fha City. City Attorney Lindberg declared fha staff is doin9 everything legally possible fo mail these noticess and in his opinions anyone attending a hearing that comes up and says he did not receive a notice - the fact that he is attending the hearing is sufficient evidence that he was informed. Member Guyer suggested that the Commission consider recommending that parking areas on private property be marked with "Entrance" and nExit" to alleviate the ingress and egress problems. The Commission discussed this and City Attorney Llndberg alleged if is a proper thing to do~ howevers the problem was in its enforcement. If will again be discussed at some future workshop meeting. FL,OCO PLAIN ZCNI, ,N~, Clfy Attorney Lindberg reminded fha Commission that the flood plain zoning hearing will be held af their next meeting. Mr. William Harshman remarked that Mr. Lane Cole talked fo Mr. Hoffmasfer and he indicated that there was a chance whereby the action of the City would not be required for another 6 monfhs~ fhaf they will be sending this fo Congress in January and action by the City would not be needed until June. City Attorney Lindberg agree~ howevers he stated that Mr. Hoffmasfer said a letter would be sent from "on high" and if would state that the City could have until the Isf of Januarys but no letter has been received. The County has made a request for an extension of time until the middle of February - there's really no point in all these bodies getting in- volved out of phase, He added that if the City can get moving on ifs they should. Director Warren indicated fhaf if is almost a matter of "Black and White" where these new zones will be applieds and that the staff will certainly fry fo give a good presentation. - 13 - IF there is a need fo continue the hearings then the Commission may do so · Member York questioned whether this study was based on the 50-year or IO0-vcar flood level, City Attorney Lindberg indicated there was not much difference between the two. Director Warren noted if was the IO0-vear flood level. City Attorney Lindberg commented that the County is still not zoning - they are doing this through building permifs~ subdivision permits and a water-way or drainage control ordinance. They haventf received any approval by the State o~ their proposal. Mr. Lindberg added fhaf af this next Commission hearing~ there will be present engineers with their mapss their background dafa~ and fhaf there will be a very thorough examination of these engineers. They should be susceptible fo cross-examination not only by the Commission but by members of the audience. These will be the City Engineers~ the Engineers for the Special District Services Organizations Bob Hoffmasfers and probably someone from the Army Corps. Member York asked i~ cerfaln crlferia has been established that has been substantiated whereby everyone is treated equally, Mr. Lindberg stated fhaf this was correct. ADJOURNMENT MSUC IRice-Guyer) Meeting adjourn to the special workshop session af 3:00 P,M. and 7:00 P.M. November 14~ 1966~ in the Admlnlstrafiv¢ Conference Room Respectfully submiffed~ City Plannin§ Commission