HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1966/09/19 MINUTES OF A ~E~ULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
September 19, 1966
The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on the above date at
7 P.M. in the Council Chamber, Civic Center with the following members present:
Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, City Attorney Lindberg
and City Engineer Cole.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Adams-Johnson) Minutes of September 7, 1966 be approved, as mailed.
Public Hearing (Cont'd) C. W. Carlstrom & Victor Builders Inc. - 329-333 H Street -
R-3 to C-1 and Request for Reduction of Front Setback from
25' to 5'
A letter from Victor T. Wiglesworth, Engineer, representing the applicants, was read
in which he requested a postponement to the meeting of October 3.
MSUC (Guyer-Johnson) Matter be continued to the meeting of October 3, 1966.
PUBLIC HEARING (Cont'd) Proposed Ordinance Establishin9 Flood Plain Zoning
Director of Planning Warren reviewed the matter whereby this was continued from the
previous meeting so that maps could be brought in delineating the application of t~,e
specific flood plain zones. He stated it was the text of the ordinance that was before
the Commission and that no recommendation was made by the staff as to where to apply
these zones to specific property. This would take considerable work on the part of the
County Flood Control people, the staff, and the Engineering Division to prepare these
maps. Mr. Warren then discussed the changes suggested at the last meeting which are
now incorporated into this revised ordinance, such as allowing residential use in the
F-2 zones with a conditional use permit.
Member Adams asked that the word "intensified~ be clarified as used in the ordinance.
City Attorney Lindberg stated this referred to residential uses - primarily the 7000
square foot minimum lots, as one would have in a standard subdivision which would cause
problems with the encroachment of flood waters.
Member Johnson asked how the determination was to be made as to the boundaries of the
flood plains. City Attorney Lindberg stated that after the discussion of this matter
with the Engineers, the County Flood people, the staff, the City Attorney in National
City, which City has adopted a similar ordinance, the concensus of opinion was to apply
the F-1 zone to the flood channel as designated by the Corps of Engineers; this would
be in the lower Sweetwater Valley. Many people, however, have interests outside of the
flood control project itself. That application of zoning would have to come after
thorough studies by the Engineers to determine where these zones would have to be applied.
It may be that certain portions of the upper Sweetwater Valley Will have these F-2 ~ones;
however, the immediate problem is the need to establish regulations acceptable to the
State for this lower Sweetwater Valley in order for the City to be reimbursed for the
right-of-way for the flood channel. Mr. Lindberg advised the Commission to recommend
to the City Council the adoption of this ordinance.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was reopened.
Mr. Paul Yeager, 414 rrj~l Street, stated he represented 215 property owners in the
Valley, whose property would fall under the proposed F-2 zone. He stated they are
opposed to this ordinance and specifically the F-2 zone, which would limit them in
the type of future buildings they can construct; hinder them in the sale of any land
they may want to sell since they would not be able to tell the purchaser what type of
construction he can put on it. Mr. Yeager referred to a section of the proposed
ordinance (section 2e) whereby a ~'structure shall be firmly anchored to prevent
floating away .... ,i and spoke in opposition to this section.
City Attorney Lindberg remarked that revisions have been made in the proposed ordinance
that would allow residentlai uses and certain fills to be brought in. These residences
would have to be built in such a manner so as to offer the minimum obstruction to the
flow of water and should be so constructed as to preve~r it from flowing'away during
a flood. Mr. Yeager commented that he did not have a chance to thoroughly study the
ordinance and asked for an explanation of the two proposed zones. Mr. Lfndberg ex-
plained the difference between the two zones and the uses allowed under each.
Mr. Yeager declared that the Building and Engineering Departments should set down the
requirements for a building in the F-1 and F-2 zones, such as the type and size of
footing, etc. He maintained that even a $35,000 home wou]d not be able to withstand
a flood, should it occur. Mr. Yeager then referred to section 2(g) of the proposed
ordinance which absolved the City of Chula Vista from any liability for damages of
these buildings in this flood plain zone. He strongly maintained that if these build-
ings are inspected by both the Building and Engineering Departments, the City should
assume the responsibility for damages to these structures, should they occur during
a flood.
Chairman Stewart explained that the Commission does not enact an ordinance - they re-
commend adoption to the City Council.
Member York discussed the proposed ordinance with Mr. Yeager commenting that the
Commission has a responsibility not only to contractors and builders but to the
citizens as well. He discussed buildings constructed in the flood plain that would
not w~thstand the flood and asked whether the City's responsibility should be to the
property owners at the east end of the V~ley or the property owners on the west end of
the Valley that will be inundated because these buildings were allowed to be constucted
at the east end of the Valley.
Mr. York indicated that Mr. Yeager's comments were to allow any type of building or
construction ¢o go into these zones without any engineering criteria, without any re-
strictions, even though the actions of the builders might have serious repercussions
on other property owners in the nearby area.
Mr. Yeager again stated the City should assume responsibility for damages. He declared
that if one was to follow this ordinance, there wouldn't be any future building in this
area. If this is so, then the City should purchase this property from the property
owners. Mr. Yeager felt the City needed more industrial land and this flood plain could
be used for this purpose.
Mr. Abe Sinor, 3100 Fifth Avenue, San Diego, stated he has property in what is now a
C-2 zone, and questioned whether that zoning will automatically become F-1 or F-2.
City Attorney Lindberg explained that if his property were designated for the F-2
zone, for instance, then the zoning would be specified as C-2F-2, which means that he
would need a conditional use permit for any development.
-2--
Melnb~, Johnson commented on the fact that the flood plain zoning will be lifted in
those a~eas where the flood channel ~s built.
Mr. Do~ Jacquot, National City, asked about the w~dth of the flood plain zoning,
whether it would be from bank to bank. Mr. Lindberg stated it would be and in
some cases, it would go beyond th~ bank.
Mr. Peter DeGraaf, 665 Del Mar Avenue, stated he is representing two people who
own the same piece of property, and felt the City should have more power in deter-
mining these r~gulations, etc., - that as it now stands, the Federal agencies make
the determination and the City abides by them. Mr. Lindberg explained that the
Corps of Engineers have been working on this project for more than a decade ~n the
Sweetwater Valley. In additior~ they have made a complete study of flood damages
throughout the lower Sweetwater Valley; consequently, the City refers to these
studies.
Mr. DeGraaf commented that the problem with the proposed ordinance lies with the
F-2 zone; that there is no provision made to separate the areas in the current of
the river flow with those that are immediately affected by the backup waters, and
in this case, he noted the trailer park on Shapov~s property as an example. This
difference should be spelled out in the ordinance and recognized as such. He then
reiterated that he has no objection to the F-1 zone, and the only objection he has
to the F-2 zone is that it be properly applied and to the proper areas.
Mr. William Davies, attorney for Long Construction Company, developers of the Bonita
Verde Subdivision, questioned the word ~intensified~' and felt it should be further
clarified. Mr. Lindberg stated this referred to standard subdivision developments
of 7000 square foot lots that might obstruct flood waters, Mr. Davies also ques-
tioned whether Section D, paragraph 2 should include that paragraph delineated
under Section 2, page 3 of the proposed ordinance which states: "any use permitted
shall be a type not appreciably damaged by flood waters provided no structures for
human occupation shall be permitted." Mr. Lindberg noted this change would be made.
Mr. Charles Kersch representing Curtis Coleman Company, which owns 22 acres on
National Avenue, discussed his objections to the urgency of the ordinance. Mr.
Lindberg explained the time limit as falling on October 15 which is the deadllne
set by the State if the City is to be reimbursed for the flood channel rights-
of-way. Mr. Kersch discussed with Mr. Lindberg the administrative and legislative
actions of this proposal, and asked if Congress has appropriated the money for
this channel. Mr. Lindberg declared they had; that they have approved several
flood control channels, this being one of them. Mr. Kersch then discussed the
Mission Valley flood channel which he stated was approved years ago, but these funds
have since been cut from the federal budget. He further commented on the proposed
zones stating in bls opinion, this would do nothing but eliminate further develop-
ment in the Valley, as far as banks, loan companies, etc., would be concerned.
Chairman Stewart indicated that this proposed ordinance is not intended to hurt
anyone - that Mr. Kersch's property has always been in what is known as the flood
plain. Mr. Kersch said this was true, and they built Unimart by putting in 4 feet
of fill; however, if the zonln9 was designated as F-2 at that time, Unimart would
never have been built because they would not have been able to get the financing.
He added that the State of California has the right of eminent domain to take this
property if they so desire; and that you do not get a top price for an area that
is subject to flooding. Mr. Lindberg explained that if there is to be a protection
of property against flood waters, then it is necessary to have a flood control
channel; this will be done in the next 4 - 5 years. If such a project is necessary
to protect these adjacent properties in the flood plain, then it is necessary for
the city, in the interim period, to impose flood plain ordinances to do this.
Mr. DeGraaf remarked that it would be better to develop these areas designated as
the flood plain. If it is not developed and the F-2 zoning is placed on it, you
jeopardize the justification for spending the money to build the channel. Mr.
DeGraaf added that you should not jeopardize the channel by taking away the value
of the land it is supposed to protect. Member York discussed the objections with
Mr. DeGraaf. Mr. DeGraaf indicated he had no objections to the restrictions as
such but to the strict restrictions imposed by this proposed ordinance. Member
York explained that building is neither limited nor restricted and that there are
areas now which will in all probability be classified as F-2 which are subject to
annual flooding.
Member Johnson referred to the last paragraph of the ordinance whereby it indicates
that the zoning would apply for a period of 4 to 5 years and asked Mr. DeGraaf if
he would prefer to have the words "temporary drainage zone" used instead of the F-1
or F~2. Mr. DeGraaf declared it would help to have it specified as being of a
temporary nature.
City Attorney Lindberg declared that if the flood channel does not go through,
the zoning that the City is attempting to apply here will be more important than
ever, and if the channel does go through, it is the proper exercise of the police
power to require conditions to be met in the areas that everyone admits is subject
to flooding.
Mr. DeGraaf declared he is in favor of having the channel constructed, but wou~d
like to see everything possible being done to enhance development in the Valley.
Mr. Lindberg reminded him that if the City does not get reimbursed for this right-
of-way, the channel will not be built as the City does not have the necessary one
or two million dollars required to build the project.
Chairman Stewart commented that this proposed ordinance will control development
of the Valley in the flood plain; the ordinance may not be perfect but it is
better than having none at ail.
Mr. Sinor felt it didn't make any difference whether the C-2 or F-2 was imposed
on his property - the City st~ll had full control over what type of development
would be permitted there. He added that the Planning Department would still have
full control of whether they would be able to obtain a building permit or not.
He questioned whether anything would actually be accompllshed by designating his
property F-2 when all departments in the City would be handling any development
he proposes for it.
Mr. Warren commented that unless Mr. Sinor files a subdivision map, it wouldn't
take the approval of all the departments he mentioned. There'being no further
comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
The Commission discussed the comments made by the people opposing the ordinance.
Member Guyer questioned whether the City would actually lose control. City
Attorney Lindberg explained that these projects are financed by the Federal govern-
ment and naturally, they will tie some strings to it. Chairman Stewart noted that
there was some very good information brought out tonight, and being m~ndful of the
time schedule involved, he feels this proposed ordinance represents the best effort
the Commission can make - the Council would have to make the final decision.
-4-
Member Guyer remarked that in view of many hearings held on this and the workshop
meetings, he too feels this revised ordinance should be recommended for adoption
by the Council.
Member Adams stated it would be in the public interest to put this ordinance into
effect. He feels the property owners are overly concerned about the F~2 zone,
simply because they do not understand it. He said he was in the building business
for 30 years and is talking with some experience. He added that, when properly
explained, there would be not objections from any of the loaning companies concern-
ing the placement of the F-2 zone on these properties.
RESOLUTION NO. 424 Resolution of the City Planning Department Recommending
MSU¢ (Guyer-Adams) to City Council the Adoption of the Amendment to the
City Code Establishing Flood Plain Zoning Controls
Findings be as follows:
a. These zones will provide safeguards until such time as flood protection or
control works in the nature of channels or levees have been constructed so
as to minimize such danger in the outlying or fringe floodway areas.
b. Without adoption of these zoning restrictions, the construction of a flood
control channel to allow full utilization of the Sweetwater Valley becomes
improbable.
PUBLIC HEARING (Cont'd) Variance - Jafro~ Inc. - Orange Avenue Frontage in
Holiday Estates Subdivision~ Unit #1 - Reduction in Front Yard
Setback from 10' to O' for Fence Construction
The application was read in which a request was made for reduction in side yard
setbacks from the required lO' to varying d~stances between O' and 10' from the
property lines for the purpose of constructing 5' high fences.
Oirector of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, adjacent
land use and zoning. He explained the applicant's need for the reduction in
setback to construct these fences since some of the lots are on slopes and others
on level ground. Director Warren compared the situation with that of the adjacent
Princess Manor subdivision whereby fences were constructed wi~in the setback area
thereby leaving an area outside the fences which were difficult to maintain,
particularly the ones with the slopes. On some of these lots, he explained, ice
plant was planted, and on others, nothing was planted. Mr. Warren then reviewed
four recommendations of approval the staff would ask to be imposed.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. John Morgan, the applicant, stated the original design of this subdivision
turned out to be a poor job. He said he conferred with the Director of Planning
to try to conform to the standards presently established on Orange Avenue. He
agrees to the conditions imposed by the staff; however, he is skeptical about
whether the property owners would take care of the shrubs they must plant in that
area between the fence and the sidewalk.
-5-
Member York asked if a provision was made for maintaining the property outside the
f~ced area. Mr. Morgan stated there was no provision -that the property owner
would have to extend his water hose over the fence to maintain these plants. There
~s, however, water available at both the sides and front of the houses.
There being no further comment, e~ther for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
Chairman Stewart commented that there is a certain amount of hardship involved
here because it is a major street and will carry a volume of traffic. He added
that these homes deserve privacy.
Director Warren stated that the staff d~d not recommend a sprinkler system for
these homes because of the cost involved. This has been done in the commercial
areas where returns were justified.
Member York declared that a long, narrow strip is difficult to maintain unless
you have an irrigation system to maintain it.
The Commission discussed the cost of installing sprinkler systems. Member
Johnson noted that this co ndition is imposed on service stations in the archi-
tectural control zone.
MSUC (Johnson-Adams) Approval of variance subject to the following conditions:
1o That the fences be allowed to within 6' from the sidewalk, not more
than 5' high; precise location to be approved by the staff.
2. That the fences be constructed flush with the ground and that the fence be
constructed so that the house side of the masonry pillars will be flush with the
street side of the fences. This will give dimension and will serve to better break
the lines of the fence.
3. That the area between the fence and sidewalk be planted with ground cover r.
and Oleander or some other hardy shrub; a plan to be approved by the Planning staff.
That such planting be maintained by the developer until growth is established.
4. Masonry pillars shall be constructed at not more than 25' intervals.
Findings are as follows:
1. That there are practical differences and unnecessary hardships within the
meaning of Ordinance No. 398 as amended which would result in the strict compliance
of the provisions of said ordinance.
So stated as delineated below.
2. That there are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to the
property herein involved or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to
property or class of uses in the same zone. The houses side upon a major street and
in order to provide the proper safety and sound buffer, a minimum 5' fence is needed.
-6-
Without the variance, the house itself would serve as the buffer since there is no
room to construct the fence unless constructed within the setback area.
3. The granting of such variance is necessary for the preservation of the
substantial property r~ght of the applicant. Without the variance, they are deprived
of full use of property and cannot provide protection from a major street at one
point of entry to the house.
4. The granting I~ such variance will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property improvements in the zone or district
in which said property ls located. The fences are set back from the intersections
to prevent a traffic hazard and none of the houses face Orange Avenue so as to view
the fence.
PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - T & J Pieknik - 667 Third Avenue - R-3 Use in C-1 Zone
The application was read in which a request was made for permission to construct
a 6-unit apartment building on property zoned C-1.
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the request.
He stated that the Commission recently granted a variance for the front portion of
the property for a 2-story building housing a dance studio on the first floor and a
residence on the second floor. The applicant is now proposing to construct a 6-unit
apartment building for which he will provide 9 parking spaces. The building will be
two stories with a 10' balcony on the second story. The staff recommends approval
of this request based on (1) there is considerable residential development in this
block, and (2) the new C-O zone will be applied to this area at such a t~me that it
is adopted. This new zone will allow multiple family development with a conditional
use permit.
Chairman Stewart questioned the width of the driveway next to the front building.
Director Warren stated the ordinance requires a 15' wide driveway.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Tadeusz Pieknik, the applicant, stated he paid $20,000 for this lot and if he
is not permitted to build an apartment on it, then he does not know what he can do
with it. Director Warren then reviewed the staff's conditlons of approval. Mr. Pieknik
stated he ~s in agreement with all of them.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
The Commission d~scussed the requirements of the new proposed C-0 zone. Member Adams
commented that approval has been granted to the applicant under this C-0 zone for the
previous variance request and approval is being considered for this variance; however,
now the Commission is considering exceptions to this proposed zone - Mr. Adams stated
that this is illogical. The Commission is not requiring that the applicant submit
plans, etc.
Chairman Stewart remarked that the shape of the lot has a lot to do with granting
the request; the fact that the applicant has 50' of frontage and a long narrow lot
would be an exceptional circumstance.
-7-
The Commission discussed the landscaping proposed by the applicant: and that
recommended by the staff.
Member Johnson asked if this area was designated as high density on the General
Plan. Director Warren noted this apartment would be allowed under the General Plan
and also the dance studio since it is a professional building which is compatible
to high density residential.
MSUC (Adams-Guyer) Variance be approved for a period of three years subject to the
following conditions:
1. A detailed landscaping plan for the area around the proposed units shall be
submitted to the staff for approval.
2. Complete building elevations shall be submitted to the staff for approval.
3. The proposed balcony shall be structured in a manner that will not utilize
supports that will interfere with the maneuverability of automobiles using the
parking spaces located below units 5 and 6.
4. The parking spaces required by ordinance for the apartments shall be clearly
labeled I'APARTMENT PARKING ONLY."
Findings be as follows:
1o That there are practical differences and unnecessary hardships within the
meaning of Ordinance No. 398 as amended which would result in the strict compliance
of the provisions of said ordinance. So stated as delineated below.
2. That there are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to the
property herein involved or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally
to property or class of uses in the same zone. Although zoned commercially, the
General Plan designates this area as high density residential and it will ultimately
bear the C-0 classification, upon adoption of the new zoning ordinance and map,
which allows a combination of uses as proposed by the applicant. The area is
subdivided in such a manner that commercial development of the total lot ~s
impractical.
3. The granting of such variance is necessary for the preservation of the
substantial property right of the applicant. The parcel cannot be developed
exclusively with commercial uses because of its 290' depth and narrow 50' width.
Without this variance, the applicant is deprived of the full use of his property.
4. The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property improvements in the zone or district
in which said property is located. Some properties are already developed in a
similar way as proposed by the applicant.
PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - G. & R. Breault - 15 East Oneida Street - Request for
Reduction of Rear Yard Setback from 20' to 14'
The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction of rear yard
setback from 20' to 14~ for the purpose of constructing an additional room.
-8-
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the
dwelling and the proposed location of the addition. He stated that the house is
located on the rear ~ of tMe. lot, The ordinance requires a 20 foot rear yard
setback; the applicants presently have 26 feet, and if they add the 12~ addition,
it would give them a 14 foot rear yard setback. The house sets back at least
50 feet from the front property line.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Raymond Breault, the applicant, stated he was present to answer any questions.
There being no comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
The commission discussed the exceptional circumstances. Chairman Stewart noted
this home was high on a hill and the location of this house to the adjacent house
would constitute an exceptional circumstance. Member Johnson remarked that this
house with the proposed room addition does not block the v~ew of any of the
surrounding neighbors.
MSUC (Guyer-Johnson)) Variance be approved. Findings as follows~
1. That there are practical differences and unnecessary hardships within the
meaning of Ordinance No. 398 as amended which would result in the strict compliance
of the provisions of said ordinance. So stated as delineated below.
2. That there are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to the
property herein involved or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally
to property or class of uses in the same zone. Except for the rear yard, there
is no room to enlarge the house to accommodate the expanding family within. The
area of the house is presently substandard and therefore non-conforming (1200 square
feet is required for a 3-bedroom house - the subject dwelling has 1028 square feet).
Granting this variance will enable the applicant to enlarge the structure to 1316
square feet which would conform to Code requirements. In this case, the applicant's
house is located on the rear half of the lot and there is an unusually deep front
setback containing a driveway and garage.
3. The granting of such variance is necessary for the preservation of the
substantial property right of the applicant. Unless this variance were granted,
the applicant could not make any significant enlargements to his home.
4. The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property improvements in the zone or district in which
said property is located. The presence of the steep slope separating the subject
property from the parcel to the rear provides a more-than-adequate separation with
which to provide desirable open space between dwellings.
Tent~ative Map - Southwestern C.~lle.~ Estates Subdivision - Unit No. 2
Director of Planning Warren submitted a map of Unit 2 located on the east side
of Otay Lakes Road across from Southwestern College. He stated this unit contains
84 single-family lots and one 9.6 acre school site. Elmhurst Street will be the
major street running through this subdivision. Director Warren then reviewed the
conditions recommended by the Division of Engineering.
-9-
Mr. Ray Swanner, representing the developer, questioned the condition of requiring
letters from the utility companies concerning the easements. City Attorney Lindberg
explained this condition adding that if it is not shown on the final map, the
subdivider must provide the letter from the utility companies. Mr. Swarmer stated
he had no further objection.
Director Warren discussed the proposed H Street alignment declaring that if it
does not go through as originally planned, it will probably go north of the school
site and will involve the next unit of this subdivision.
Mr. Swarmer discussed the school site explaining that the land was sold to the
School District with the provision that before the 152nd lot is sold, the improvements
would be furnished for the school.
Member Johnson questioned the approval of the street names. Director Warren explained
these streets were named after colleges to be compatible with Southwestern College -
this was ~ased on uniformity and there is no objection to them~
MSUC (Adams-Johnson) Approval oF tentative map subject to the following conditions:
1. On the final map, one foot lots marked "reserved for future street" shall
be placed at the dead ends of Yale Avenue, Auburn Street, Elr~i~urst Street and
Fordham Street. Such one foot lots shall be separately identified by letter.
2. Concurrent with action upon the final map of Unit No. 2, it will be
necessary that appropriate one foot control lots in Unit No. 1 be dedicated for
public use.
3. The curb radius at all intersections shall be 20 feet. Property line
radii shall be concentric with the curb return wherever possible.
4. The drainage easement between Lots 156 and 157, and 153 and 154 shall be
a minimum of l0 feet in width.
5. Letters shall be provided from utility companies stating that rear and
side lot easements will not be required on the final map.
6. Dedicated right-of-way for Xavier Avenue shall be 56 feet. Separate
curb and sidewalk consistent with those existing adjacent to Lots 8 and 9 in
Unit #1 shall be placed along Xavier adjacent to Lots 155 through 162. Monolithic
curb and sidewalk shall be placed adjacent to Lots 195 through 197.
7. Dedicated right-of-way for Vassar Avenue between Gotham Street and
Fordham Street shall be 56 feet. Separate curb and sidewalk consistent with that
existing in front of Lots 24 and 25 shall be placed in front of Lots 178 and 237.
8. The subdivision boundary shall be revised to reflect the grant deed to
the City for Fire Station No. 4. Such deed included the west half of Yale Avenue
north of the centerline of Elmhurst Street. It will be necessary that the City
dedicate the Westerly half of Yale f~:.J ~ ~ction upon the final map of this
Unit No. 2.
-10-
R.~quest by Princess Park Estates~ Inc. for Change in Houses Approved for Princess
Manor Subdivision~ Unit #5
Director Warren noted that the representative of Princess Park EsLates was present
earlier at the meeting but left. He expla?n~d that the Commission originally
approved variances to allow homes in this subdivision containing less square
footage than that required by ordinance. For each unit, the subdivider had to
come back to the Commission for approval of these homes. The subdivider has now
indicated to the staff that they wish to modify the composition of these homes
somewhat and add 6 more undersized units. Where the changes were minor, approval
was given administratively. The greatest increase would be in the 12 three-bedroom
homes which contain 1007 square feet.
Member Adams felt this would downgrade the area considerably.
Chalrman Stewart explained that the subdivider had originally requested more
4 bedroom homes than the market warranted. He added that if the smaller homes
r~et the need of the community, he has no objection to granting the request.
Member Johnson declared that the Commission spent considerable time looking over
these house plans, etc., and that this would be quite a jump from the 1300 square
feet they should have. He added he is reluctant to grant them anything further
on it.
Member York agreed adding that they would be taking a big step down from what the
ordinance requires and if this is approved, then the ordinance should be changed.
Member Adams suggested the Commission compromise on this - instead of granting
them 12 three-bedroom homes, grant them 6, etc.
Chairman Stewart noted that the variance was originally granted the applicant
because of the surrounding area, and rather than retain the 4 bedroom units, if
the applicant so desires, he would be willing to agree to six of the smaller units
and six of the units having a larger size.
Director Warren commented that the reasons for requesting the smaller home were
(1) it is inexpensive and (2) because of the problems with interest rates, a few
more people could qualify for a loan for these homes. If the ordinance is reason-
able, it should apply; if not, it should be changed. Mr. Warren added that he
was impressed with this particular model home w~th what it had to offer.
Chairman Stewart declared the present ordinance is a good one and it should not
be changed; however, this particular area under discussion does not lend itself
to 1300 square foot homes.
Member York suggested this be either granted or continued instead of trying to
change the mixture of homes the subdivider requested.
Director Warren remarked that this was a variance and the Commission could change
the conditions without having to hold another public hearing.
Member Guyer moved that this matter be held over to the next meeting.
The motion died for lack of a second.
MSC (Johnson-York) Denial of the request.
Motion carried by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Members Johnson, York and Adams
NOES: Members Stewart and Guyer
ABSENT: None
ADJOURNMENT
MSUC (Guyer-York) Meeting adjour sine die. The meeting adjourned at 10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
/ /Jennie M. Fulasz
,J Secretary
-12-