Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1968/09/23 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA September 23, 1968 The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on the above date at 7 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Guava Avenue with the following members present: Hyde, York, Stewart, Rice, Adams, and Guyer. Absent: Member Gregson (with previous notification). Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Assistant Planner Lee, Planning Draftsman Liua9, City Attorney Lindberg, and Senior Civil Engineer Harshman. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Adams-York) Approval of the minutes of September 16, 1968, as mailed. PUBLIC HEARING: Rezoning - 527-545 H Street and 495 Smith Avenue - R-3 to C-1-D and reduction of front setback to 10' - Planning Commission initiated Director of Planning Warren stated that this matter was Commission initiated at the request of the staff. It was brought about as a result of the recent approval of a rezonin9 of five lots on the north side of H Street between Fifth and Smith Avenues. Mr. Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of these lots and the five remaining lots that are presently zoned R-3. The staff recommends that the rezoning be approved and that the setbacks be established at 10 feet on both H Street and Smith Avenue. 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. The Commission discussed this briefly and agreed that it should be approved. RESOLUTION NO. 539 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to City Council Rezoning from R-3 to C-1-D and Reduction of MSUC (Guyer-York) Front Setback to lO' on H Street and Smith Street T he following condition to apply: The alley to the rear shall be fully improved in accordance with Engineering standards. Findings be as follows: a. While the General Plan designates the property as very high density residential, all of the "H" Street frontage in the area, with the exception of the subject parcels, are commercially zoned. The General Plan should be revised accordingly, especially in light of the fact that the frontage between Smith and Broadway is entirely improved commercially even though the General Plan also designates these parcels in the same residential category as the subject properties. -2- 9/23/68 b. The large and increasing volume of commercial activity in this area creates an undesirable residential environment. c. Approval of this request would create a logical extension of the City's primary commercial area. PUBLIC HEARING: 370 "E" Street - Request for expansion of commercial use into R-3 zone and reduction in number of required offstreet parkin~ spaces - Push and Moore (Garden Farms Market) Director of Planning Warren explained that this matter was continued from the meeting of September 4 to allow the staff to meet with the applicant and to readvertise the matter since it was found that there was an encroachment of the commercial use into the R-3 zone. Mr. Warren submitted a plot plan and a more detailed plan of the proposed addition noting the parking layout which delineates 35 spaces; the ordinance as presently written would require them to provide 52 spaces. The addition, itself, is minor, and will be used chiefly for storage. The staff has conducted a study of the parking situation and noted that the actual parking rarely exceeds 50% of the present capacity. One factor seemed to be the location of the store--a good percentage of its trade comes from "walk-in" customers. In this matter, the Commission will be considering two variances; the addition of the building into the R-3 zoned property and the reduction of parking spaces needed. The staff has provided findings if the Commission desires to approve this request and asked that a condition be imposed requiring the applicant to remark the parking spaces. Member York requested that the testimony given at the September 4 meeting be incorporated into the minutes of this meeting. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. The applicant was present to answer any questions. There being no comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission discussed the request and indicating that the service was a needed one in this neighborhood, and that the business was largely "walk-in" which did not necessitate the need for more parking spaces. MSUC (York-Adams) Approval of the variance request, subject to the condition that the parking spaces be re-marked in accordance with plot plan. 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. Strict application of the ordinance would not allow for modernization of the store to maintai~ competition with buildings in the area. -3- 9/23/68 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 expansion proposed will be used for storage only, therefore, no additional parking spaces are needed. The R-3 property is presently being used for commer- cial purposes; this would be an expansion of a previously granted variance. 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 neighbor- hood in which the property is located. The new addition will place certain materials and storage, now in the open, under roof. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan will not be affected by this request. City Attorney Lindberg stated that the zoning ordinance is written in a manner that all but prohibits this type of variance, and in line with this, he would suggest the Co~nission initiate a public hearing to rezone this R-3 property in order to conform to the present zoning fronting on E Street. Member Rice asked about the depth of the commercial zoning and if the area adjacent to this should be included in this hearing for rezoning. Director Warren suggested the Commission leave this up to the staff--they will make a stuc[v of this and advertise those areas they feel would make a logical zoning pattern. The Commission can always recommend approval of less zoning, but not more zoning than that advertised. MSUC (Stewart-Guyer) Public hearing be set for October 21, 1968 to rezone to C-2 that area presently zoned R-3 south of the market at 370 E Street and any adjacent areas deemed feasible by the Director of Planning. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit - 453 Fourth Avenue - Request for medical office in R-3 zone A. Bernard and Rita S. Weinber9 The application was read in which a request was made to construct a single-story medical office on property at the southeast corner of Fourth Avenue and Roosevelt Street, zoned R-3. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the proposed construction. He stated that the single-family dwelling presently on the property will be removed for this new construction. The zoning ordinance permits the granting of a professional office subject to a conditional use permit; it also delineates real estate and insurance offices in this category. The building proposed will contain 1,050 square feet with a possible expansion at a later date to 1,680 square feet, A total of eight parking spaces will be provided and the plot plan shows the access as onto Roosevelt Street. -4- 9/23/68 In the past, there have been similar requests along Fourth Avenue and this has proved difficult for the staff to evaluate. On the surface it appears that a medical office would be compatible with high density residential use which is called out in the General Plan and which presently exists on this area. Mr. Warren noted that for a distance of one and one-half miles, (Center Street south to the City limits) there is no commercial or office use, except for the Doctor's Park which is oriented to the adjacent commercial area and the northwest corner of Fourth and "H". One of the primary reasons high-density zoning is called out for Fourth Avenue is because of the character of traffic. To put commercial uses along this street tends to hamper this flow of traffic. The staff is also concerned with the uncontmolled precedent that could occur if this was approved. This could be the start of a trend to establish other commercial uses along Fourth Avenue. A year ago the Commission denied a similar request at the northeast corner of Fourth Avenue and D Street. Director Warren then discussed the uses along H Street and the expansion of commercial area on Third Avenue extending from end to end, indicating that there is adequately zoned Commercial land for such uses in the City. He added that this use would tend to be a spot zoning, and the staff, therefore, recommends denial of the request for the reasons outlined. Mr. Warren further added that if it is the desire of the Commission to approve the request, the staff has five conditions of approval they would like to submit. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Robert Miles, representing the applicant, stated he was present and would make his comments after other testimony was given. Speaking in opposition were: Mrs. Robert Murphy, 1061 Del Mar Avenue, speaking for her mother who owns property in the area, felt the traffic would be very congested if the request were granted, and Donald Raymetz, 368 Roosevelt Street, who spoke of the possible precedent that would be established. Hr. Robert Miles, speaking for the applicant, stated that Fourth Avenue from "E" to "H" Street is becoming interspersed with multiple-family and professional office uses. He cited the Doctor's Park, the medical offices at Fourth and "H" Street, and numerous apartment dwellings, so that it is logical to assume that professional offices and multiple-family dwellings are compatible in this area. He declared that the pattern has been laid out in this general area, and that this conditional use permit should be granted because it is sttuated on a corner of a street that is not heavily congested. The ingress and egress will be from Roosevelt Street so this will not entail traffic conditions that might arise if it were from Fourth Avenue. Dr. Bernard Weinberg, 496 "H" Street, the applicant, stated he averages six patients per hour; some of these patients come by foot. The office will be open four days a week from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. That is the extent of the hours and the traffic involved in this request. The building will be occupied for just his own use and he will employ one receptionist. Mr. Frank Martin, representing Blue Chip Realty, remarked that in view of the terrible condition of the house as it presently stands, it would be more practical to improve this property by removing this dwelling and putting in a nice building. If an apartment went in t~ere, it would bring on more traffic. -5- 9/23/68 There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams commented that the facts set forth by the Planning staff should convince the Commission that it would be poor planning and contrary to the General Plan to approve this request. Member Stewart referred to the testimony indicating the houses along this street were in poor condition and granting this request would be just the thing to encourage this sort of trend. This land is more desirable because it costs less than that presently zoned commercial. Mr. Stewart added that there is plenty of commercial area for this type of use in the City and the Commission shouldn't approve this request in this residential area. Director Warren discussed the Doctors' Park which he declared was related to the commercial area. It is the simple interspersing of this commercial use where it suits the property owners' desire that becomes the problem. The staff is not concerned with this particular situation, but if it is approved, then the scene is set for professional and office uses along this street. Member York remarked that he doesn't agree that this medical office would be an undesirable use in a residential zone. It is an allowed use under the R-3 zone with a conditional use permit and not an incompatible use with the residential; however, it would not be logical to put it in this particular area. There is a scattering of this type of use between "E" and "H" Streets, and the properties between "G~' and "H" Streets on Fourth Avenue and between Third and Fifth Avenue on "H" Street will be more and more desirable for this type of use because of the hospital in the area. Mr. York felt it was unfair to deny this applicant his request when they will be granting it to others in the future. Mr. Robert Miles asked if he could have a rebuttal to previous remarks. Chairman Hyde informed him that the public hearing was closed, but he polled the Commission on a request to reopen the hearing and hear Mr. Miles' remarks. No one made a motion to reopen the hearing. The Commission discussed the request with Member Adams commenting that they might take cognizance of the fact that the new zoning ordinance permits a C-O zone; then the conditional use permit in an R-3 zone for a medical office will not exist. Director Warren indicated this would be true, but added that they will run into the problem of where this use is compatible and where it is not. He added that if the Commission can make a finding that this particular item qualifies for a conditional use permit then they should do so. The staff is only cautioning the Commission as to the precedent that might be established. City Attorney Lindberg spoke on the matter of establishing a precedent. In dis- cussing a rezoning, it should be recognized that when you establish a rezoning pattern in a sense you are creating a precedent to complete the pattern that is initiated when you rezone a particular piece of proper~y. To a lesser degree, you could create a precedent in an area by a conditional use permit since you are indicating that this particular use is necessary and desirable ~n this area but you have more leeway in limiting the grant in that area. Mr. Lindberg added that he rejects the idea of a precedent by a variance entirely; this is purely a grant by the Commission after conducting a public hearing for this particular use to be located in a particular area. A conditional use permit falls between the rezoninq matter where a precedent is clearly established and a variance wnere no precedent should be considered. -6- 9/23/68 MSC (Rice-Adams) Denial of the request based on the following reasons: 1. There is adequate commercially zoned land within the City to develop without encroaching into R-3 zoned property. 2. The use proposed would be %pot zoning" in essence by placing a commercial use in an area clearly developed for residential purposes. 3. The proposed use does not coincide with the objectives of the Chula Vista General Plan which states rezoning of the City should be based on the Chula Vista General Plan--this use in essence is rezoning since it will allow the intrusion of a commercial use into an exclusively residential area. 4. The proposed plan woul~ provide for ingress and egress of commercial traffic onto Roosevelt Street, thus encouraging the expansion of commercial uses down Roosevelt Street. The motion passed by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Rice, Adams, Guyer, Stewart, and Hyde NOES: Member York ABSENT: Member Gregson Chairman Hyde reminded the applicant of his right to appeal this decision to the City Council within l0 days. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - 453 Fourth Avenue - Request for reduction in setback on Fourth Avenue from 30' to 15' and on Roosevelt Street from 20' to 10' - R. Bernard and Rita S. weinberq Director of Planning Warren explained that this item relates to the conditional use permit just denied. He would suggest one of two things: (1) either file the application, or (2) continue it until the appeal is filed and considered by the City Council. City Attorney Lindber9 stated the matter should be filed and readvertised if the appeal is granted. MSUC (Guyer-Rice) Application for variance be filed. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - Shoppin~ Center site at northeast corner of Fifth Avenue and "H" Street - Request for increase in permitted si~n area in a C-1-D zone and reduction of front setback for free- standing sign - H. Salt, Esq., Fish & Chips T he application was read in which a request was made for a freestanding sign and a reduction of setback from 25' to O' for this sign, for property located on the north side of "H" Street east of Fifth Avenue. The application also requests a sign on the building identifying the business. -7- 9/23/68 Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the business location in the Big Apple shopping center on the northeast corner of Fifth and "H" Street. He stated that subsequent to the advertisement of this hearing, the applicant withdrew his request since he eliminated the freestanding sign from his plans. The Commission, however, will have to consider architectural approval for the building and the attached sign since the area falls within the "D" zone. The sign proposed will be 2-1/2' X 16', interior lighted and attached to the building. The sign is compatible and in scale with the building as proposed. The Commission acknowledges that they do not have a clear cut uniformity of architecture on the site and it is difficult to relate this to those presently under construction. Mr. Warren discussed the proposed parking indicating that adequate parking is provided on the site at the present time. The staff is recommending that the building and sign as submitted be approved and the request for the variance be filed since the applicant has withdrawn it. The Commission concurred there were no problems connected with this approval. MSUC (Adams-Rice) Architectural approval of the sign and building as submitted at this meeting. Also, that the variance request be filed. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit - Southeast corner of Hilltop Drive and Rienstra Street - Request for service station in C-N zone R. J. Lively The application was read in which a request was made to construct and operate a service station on the southeast corner of Hilltop Drive and Rienstra Street. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the proposed station; the area is zoned C-N. The service station site is 150' X 150' and will be part of a 2-1/2 acre neighborhood commercial shopping center. Mr. Warren added that because of the number of stations in the city limits, the staff felt it necessary to conduct a study relating to a finding on the conditional use permit which states: "the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood or the community." Mr. Ken Lee, Assistant Planner, discussed the study he conducted on this matter. He submitted map of the area delineating the proposed and existing sites of the service stations. He stated that to operate a successful station requires the pumping of approximately 20,000 gallons (minimum) of gas a month, togetl~er with other sales and services. Many stations pump between 45,000 and 55,000 per month along major thoroughfares. He pointed out that the newest station in the area (northeast corner of Melrose and Orange) averages 15,000 to 18,000 gallons per month. He went on to cite other station locations and their average monthly pumping rate. He added that the staff is recommending denial because they cannot justify the location as being necessary or desirable for the neighborhood or the community because three other undeveloped sites exist in the neighborhood. Mr. Warren indicated that the fact that this is in a neighborhood shopping center and across the street from an elevated parking lot may meet the determinations of compatibility. -8- 9/23/68 This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Riley Lively, the applicant, stated he has spent nearly $15,000 grading and improving this property. They did receive approval to put the Speedee Mart on this property, and without the help of the American Oil Company, he would not be able to develop the balance of this center. He added that he does not understand the justification of denying his request based upon the County's approval of two sites within the vicinity of this location. Mr. George Cregan, representing American Oil Company, stated they have been in this business for 75 years and they do not enter into anything like this on the hit and miss basis. He passed around photos of their service stations and discussed the average gallon pump per month indicating that one operator will be able to pump 60,000 and another operator coming in will only be able to pump 15,000 at one location. He felt you couldn't judge the potential of a station on this. Member Rice asked if there were any market figures made for this particular site. Mr. Cregan indicated that they will be pumping up to 30,000 gallons for the first year and then from 40,000 to 50,000 in their fourth year. Mr. Lee pointed out that an American Oil service station east of the area Was pumping less than 9,000 gallons at one time and is now up to 20,000 gallons per month. Therefore, the figure just quoted by Mr. Cregan, indicating they plan to pump close to 40,000 per month is something that has not been accomplished by any other station in the area. Mr. Cregan stated the volume for this particular service station is projected for some time in the future. Mr. Lively noted one of the comments made in the staff report by Mr. Lee referred to the Humble Oil station to go in at the corner of Melrose and Orange and they will not build until 1969. The reason for this, he contended, is that they are planning on the freeway business. This particular station is not--this is strictly a neighborhood shopping center. Mr. Gene Ripley, engineer for American Oil, stated that the station they are proposing to build at this location is one that will enhance the location. The pictures passed around the Commission are ones of their contemporary buildings. Mr. Lively declared that 10% of the service station site will be in flowers (landscaping). There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Rice felt this was an ideal location for a service station. He said he was at a loss as to how to justify it, but he did feel it was a necessary service to the con~nunity. Member York commented that American Oil is not a major company in California, but it is getting to be. It was hard to second guess here--it is probable that a service station will go in there. He added that people will go to the station for which they carry a credit card. He added that if these people are willing to gamble on putting in this station in this location, they will be sure that the -9- 9/23/68 station will make a go of it, and for the Commission to sakv when this station should go in, is wrong. Member Stewart stated he has mixed emotions about this matter; he questioned when they should stop permitting service station construction when it tries to establish a neighborhood need. He stated this is a free enterprise system and it is the oil companies that are taking the gamble. If the land use is compatible with the surrounding area, you need overwhelming evidence that it is not needed, and you can turn it down. There are a great number of stations that are just not making it; however, this is no concern of the Commission. A service station is an allowed use in this zone under a conditional use permit, and this one is compatible in this area, he added, and cannot see how they can turn it down. Member York remarked that knowing what they know today about the street pattern, location, size of this center, etc., he would be reluctant to grant a commercial zoning for that site; however, this zoning is now established. He stated that the use is not imcompatible. Director Warren commented that based on the testimony of the last two members, perhaps the zoning ordinance should be changed. The problem lies in the zoning of the property--it is the most superfluous shopping center site the City has. The staff has been unable to make necessary findings as required by ordinance. City Attorney Lindberg declared that the ordinance calls out for specifics that some form of a market survey should be made before commercial zoning for shopping centers is granted. The Commission does understand the proliferation of shopping centers without a full background as to the need and the service area they will actually serve must be made. However, in this particular case, the zoning has already been established. The Commission discussed the site and the proposed use and the type of building proposed for construction there. Member Adams stated that he could not see that these oil companies have tried to design their stations so they would be compatible with the residential areas. He would like to raise this point at the time of approval of their building plans. Mr. Warren commented that this is usually handled by the staff, but in this case, he will refer it to the Commission for approval. Chairman Hyde summarized the feelings of most of the Commissioners in stating that American Oil Company has offended the community's senses in several of its stations here in the City--this is in reference to their outdoor displays. MSUC (York-Stewart) Approval of the conditional use permit, subject to the following conditions: 1. Grading plan and revised plot plan to coordinate the development with those areas marked for future building be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. 2. That building plans and signs be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval prior to obtaining a building permit. -10- 9/23/68 Findings be as follows: a. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood or the community. Through market analysis the applicant has shown that the projected population and land use of the neighborhood will support subject service station. b. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The service station will be located within a shopping center, is well served by a major and a collector street and will be compatible with adjacent use. c. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the Code for such use. Architectural and site plans will be submitted to the staff and Commission for approval. d. That the granting of this conditional use will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. The General Plan is flexible to the extent that approval of this conditional use permit will not be in conflict with the Plan. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - 1070 Del Mar Avenue and 1077-1087 Third Avenue - Request for R-3 use in C-2 zone and reduction of front setback from 25' to 15' R.E. Hall T he application was read in which a request is made to construct an apartment complex on C-2 zoned land along 1077-1087 Third Avenue, and for a reduction of setback from 25' to 15' along Del Mar Avenue. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the area, the land use, and the adjacent zonings. He stated that the applicant is proposing to build on property that has both Third Avenue and Del Mar frontage--Third Avenue is zoned C-2 for a depth of 187' and Del Mar is zoned R-3 for a depth of 187'. He plans to put in 42 units with 63 parking spaces, a density of one unit per 1500 square feet of land. The General Plan shows commercial use for the intersection of Third Avenue and Naples Street. The east side of Third Avenue is designated for multiple family use extending to Moss Street. In this case, there is a commercial trend set even with tile mixture of uses. The City Attorney points out that they should be careful with a use variance; where, instead, it can be rezoned, they should do it. The trend along Third Avenue is for commercial use; however, a multiple-family development is proposed to the north of this site. -ll- 9/23/68 Mr. Warren noted the petition submitted by 18 property owners in the area protesting this request. A1 though they did not state any reasons in their petition, some of them were in earlier and stated they were concer ned about the sewer. They felt that if this applicant hooked up to the sewer on the Third Avenue side, they would find it difficult to bring it in on Del Mar. This sewer problem is irrelevant to the matter and should not concern the Co~mission. City Attorney Lindberg stated he discussed this sewer matter with the City Engineer today. There is little doubt about the desirability of securing a sewer main down to these properties. Insofar as the matter of land use is concerned, the matter of sewer is not of primary concern to the Commission. It is the opinion of the City Engineer that he will direct that an arrangement be made for sewer down to Del Mar. This could be in line with the ordinance that allows a City Engineer to determine where a sewer should be accomplished. An attempt to connect onto Third Avenue here would not be acceptable to the City Engineer. Mr. William Harshman, Senior Civil Engineer, stated he cannot make any statements on this, as he was not briefed on this matter by the City Engineer. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. R. E. Hall, the applicant, stated that he did not know at the time he submitted the application that the commercially zoned property in the Comqty at the corner of Third Avenue and Moss Street would go to R-3. He discussed the infeasibility of developing that small lot on Third Avenue as commercial--the cost of the lot and the building would make it prohibitive. He did discuss the sewer with the Engineering Division. They approached some of the home owners in this block about a 1911 Act; only two people showed any indication about being interested in it at all. Mr. Robert Miles, 392 "E" Street, stated the County is creating a high density zoning in that area north of this. There is 200' of commercial, then it goes R-2--the County is undertaking to make this R-3. Opposing the request were: Martha Hocker, 1088 Del Mar Avenue,; Mary Buchanan, 1060 Del Mar Avenue; Dan Norris, 1055 Del Mar Avenue; Mel Leathley, 1015 Third Avenue; Mrs. Ruth Fox, 1056 Del Mar Avenue; Mary Waller, 1039 Third Avenue; Alda Rezentes, 1084 Third Avenue; and Mrs. Mel Leathley, 1015 Third Avenue. They stated as their reasons: (1) concerned with the number of units proposed for construction; this is a one-half street and parking must be provided on site. However, the building is being built so close to the street that the people living in the units will have to park on Del Mar Avenue; (2) the increased traffic on Del Mar will be a major nuisance to the residents of the area; (3) the reduction of setback on Del Mar would set them 5' from the property line and they plan to go two stories which will invade the privacy of the adjacent residences; (4) the applicant's intent is to come in from Third Avenue which will cut the residents off from getting sewer service; (5) Buchanan--she will have car lights up to 5' from her bedroom windows; (6) it will block the adjacent residences off from light, and air; (7) there is a water problem here also--there is a 2" pipe now--they will not get any pressure unless more waterpipes are put in; (8) not opposed to the apartments, in general, but opposed to the reduction of setback and that of rezoning commercial to apartment use; (9) the area to the north and west is proposed for commercial use; K-Mart is taking the entire block of this site; (10) there are 20 children on this block (Del Mar) now and if you bring in apartments there will be at least 45 more. On a show of hands, there were approximately 17 persons in attendance opposing the request. -t2- 9/23/68 Mr. Halt declared that only a big business could possibly go into the Third Avenue site--the lot costs $35,000 and the building would be about $25,000. It is economically infeasible to develop it commercially. Mr. Hall remarked that he will be building a solid fence between his property and that to the north of this site. It will be a 6' grape stake fence, which will be going all around the property. He added that the reduction of setback was requested so it will give them more open space in the middle of their project. Regardless of whether or not this variance is approved, he will be building this apartment complex on this site. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Rice mentioned that there is a problem here where R-3 is a logical zoning and the problem on Del Mar which is a narrow street and not conducive to a lot of traffic. The Commission should bear this in mind--if this is approved, setbacks in the whole area should then be reduced to 15'. He personally cannot condone a mixed development here--Third Avenue should be straight commercial. In answer to Member Guyer's question, Mr. Warren stated that the County permits R-3 development in a C-1 zone. City Attorney Lindberg remarked that the Commission need not put into the motion anything pertaining to the sewer problem here. The question has been raised, it is a matter of record, and the City Engineer should take careful note of it. MSUC (Rice-Stewart) Approval of the reduction in setback on Del Mar Avenue from 25' to 15', subject to the following conditions: 1. A landscaping and irrigation plan shall be submitted for the entire project, prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. All trash areas shall be enclosed per staff approved design. Please contact the staff in this regard. 3. The treatment of all parkway areas and street improvements will be coordinated with the City Engineer at the time a design is approved for Third Avenue and Del Mar. 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 existing setback along Del Mar was designed for existing single-family conditions. 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 Planning Commission has previously granted variances for setback reductions for R-3 zones in other sections of the City. -13- 9/23/68 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 neighbor- hood in which the property is located. The setback proposed will conform to the new R-3 regulations. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The use proposed conforms with the General Plan. The request for use variance for the C-2 zone is denied for the following reasons: 1. Several changes have taken place in the surrounding county areas since the adoption of our General Plan. Third Avenue frontage in the county north of this request has been developed with commercial office use and apartments located directly east of the office, the west side is being proposed for a possible large commercial center (approximately 10 acres). 2. In cases where a determination has been made that commercial zoning was inappropriate, but rezoning for residential use had not been accepted by all of the residents involved, the Commission has granted a variance to permit multiple family development. Usually, in those cases, residential use was already prevalent and the demand for commercial development did not occur. In this case, the trend for the Third Avenue frontage is toward commercial development, several commercial uses presently exist. 3. If approved, a conflict of land use would result along Third Avenue. MSUC (Rice-York) Staff set for hearing the change of setbacks on both the east and west side of Del Mar Avenue in this block to 15'. The hearing be set for October 21, 1968. Chairman Hyde advised the applicant of his right to appeal this decision within 10 days to the City Council. Mr. G. J. Hayes, 1063 Del Mar Avenue, asked the Commission to also set for hearing the area presently zoned R-2 to be changed to R-3 to conform to this zoning. MSUC (York-Stewart) Delay this item for four weeks to give the property owners in the area a chance to circulate a petition indicating their desires on this request. Request for modification and conditions of variance granted for property along the south side of Davidson Street~ 150' west of Fifth Avenue - John C. Noble Coi. Director of Planning Warren noted a letter received from John Noble, developer of an 18-unit apartment project at 510 Davidson Street, requesting that a condition of the original variance for this site requiring the installation of a 6' high fence on the west side of Fifth Avenue south of Davidson Street between the residence and the development be deleted. Mr. Warren pointed out that the condition states "east" of Fifth Avenue; this is an error, it should state "west" of Fifth. The original applicant agreed to put up a fence even though it was pointed out at that -14- 9/23/68 meeting of November 6, 1967, that the access road was not a part of the variance. City Attorney Lindberg stated that since the variance runs with the land, this condition will apply equally with the new owner. It is up to the Planning Commission to make the modification; no public hearing is necessary. This condi- tion was one of the considerations entered into by the original property owner. Mr. John Noble, the developer, stated he wasn't aware of just where the fence was supposed to go. Mr. Paul Peterson, 260 Fifth Avenue, stated there is presently a block wall fence along the west side of his property to the extent of three-fourths of the distance. He remarked that this side of the house has the two bedrooms and these cars park just outside his bedroom windows. There is noise and disturbance, and the wall, therefore, is a reasonable one. Member Adams declared that this condition was included in the original motion and it is a legal and binding one. MSUC (Adams-Rice) The condition of the previously granted variance requiring a wooden fence 6' high, along the south side of the driveway to the apartments on the west side of Fifth Avenue, be required as part of this variance. Consideration of plans for proposed maintenance b.uildin§ - Gre~ Ro~ers Park Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the proposed maintenance shed in the Greg Rogers Park. It is necessary for the Commission to recommend approval of the plans for all public buildings according to State Law. This building measures 25' X 50', masonry construction with a gravel covered roof. Because of the topography, the building will get its access from an interior park drive and if proper landscaping is put in, the building may not be visible from Oleander Street. The staff is not prepared to make any recommendation on this item since it just came in on Friday afternoon and must be rushed through since it will be heard by the City Council at their meeting tomorrow night (September 24, 1968). City Attorney Lindberg explained that the Commission's function in all matters of real estate, closing of streets, disposal of buildings, etc., in the City is to deem whether or not those buildings will have any effect on the General Plan. Director Warren commented that if the Commission got into detailed plans, the Commission would have to concern themselves with details; in this case, the placement of the building on this site would have no effect on the General Plan, but does not conform to the park site plan. Member York stated the Commission needs more time on these matters to make a positive recommendation. MSUC (York-Stewart) Placement of the maintenance shed in the Greg Rogers Park is found to be not in conflict with the General Plan. -15- 9/23/68 Chairman and Director's Reports Chairman Hyde reported on the last meeting of the Sweetwater Valley Planning Committee stating that the Committee got down to the problems and began to shape the criteria on which to base a preliminary prezoning plan that the staff is going to prepare for their consideration. The Committee will not meet again until a week from next Wednesday to give the staff time to prepare this plan. He declared this was a heavy load to put on the staff. Director Warren commented that they may not be able to meet that next Wednesday deadline, but they will certainly try. The consultants for the Civic Center Plan have presented their plan and they will be doing additional work; there is some revision now that has to be made after a meeting with the Bond issue committee this morning. Th~s is another imporant deadline that the staff has to work on. The consultants must present this plan to the Planning Commission and the Chief Administrative Officer has suggested that this be a combined meeting with the Community Facilities Committee. Because of the limited amount of time on this, Mr. Warren asked if this meeting could be set up for 3:30 p.m., either Thursday or Friday. This will be an official meeting whereby the Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council. The Commission was polled and it was agreed to call this meeting for Friday afternoon, September 27, 1968, at 3:30 p.m. City Attorney Lindber9 spoke briefly about the Civic Center Plan stating that the Commission should not just sit down and pi ckapart a plan that the consultants have worked on for three months. It is again the matter of whether or not it is in conformity with the General Plan. Quite frankly, he added, this is an item quite easy to resolve when you get the basic facts. Member York asked what action the Community Facilities Committee will take. City Attorney Lindberg answered that its function will be to accept the report. The Commission, Council, and this Committee will give their approval of the basic concept of the report in order to get it off the ground. Member Stewart brought up the cultural aspects of the Plan noting that this point was brought up at a previous meeting. He stated that this point was not open for reconsideration, and requested that the City Attorney be present at this meeting next Friday in order to make this point. If discussion is allowed on this, it will only delay the meeting. Meeting with the Broadway Association Director Warren stated that the staff has tentatively arranged a conference session with the Broadway Association at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, September 30. This is the first available date. The Commission concurred on this date. Watson Amendment Chairman Hyde passed around a letter from Mayor McCorquodale concerning the Watson amendment and asking for Commission support against this proposal. -16- 9/23/68 Weinber.~ Conditional Use Permit Application Mr. Robert Miles, 392 "E" Street, referred to the conditional use permit just denied by this Commission and stated that he cannot specifically see why they cannot proceed with this development. City Attorney Lindberg cautioned the Commission on reconsidering the matter at this time. The public hearinghas been closed and the motion made for the denial. The best thing for Mr. Miles to do now would be to raise these questions before the City Council. The staff will forward the Commission's findings to the applicant and he can base his appeal on this. Mr. Miles declared that this man (the applicant) is willing to invest in a piece of property and he is not allowed time for a rebuttal. Mr. Miles felt that consideration should be given to the people i~terested in this and in five minutes, they could settle this once and for all. City Attorney Lindberg declared that all interested parties are allowed every opportunity to speak and make rebuttals until the hearing is closed. Then the Commission discusses the matter--this discussion is not part of the record. In some instances, after the closing of a hearing, the Commission can ask someone in the audience for additional information; however, they cannot allow them to give rebuttals to everything they discuss--this could go on forever. Mr. Miles was requested to pursue the staff philosophy with the Director. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (York-Rice) Meeting adjourn to Friday afternoon, September 27, 1968, at 3:30 for a special meeting with the Community Facilities Committee to consider the Civic Center Plan. The meeting adjourned at 10:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ennie M. Fulasz Secretary JMF: hm