HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1966/03/07 M]NL;TES OF A REF~ULAR MEEi~iNc~ OF l'd'E
Li~"~ PLAM~[~ COMM!SS~0N 0~ C~,~iA 'JiSFA CAL!FORNiA
March 7, 1966
[r:e ~eg~,~ :~eeti;90~ the Cty Planning Commis:~o~ w~ ~e~d on t~e ~:bove date at
7 p.m~ ~ t"¢ ~*c~l ~amber~ C~v]c Center, with the fo~ ow~r.g members p~esent:
~t~.,~n~or'~, S~ew~rt Sm~th~ '~ade~, Adams, and Guyer. Absent: w~t~ prioy qot~flcat~on:
Mem~r cm :~o . A~;~ ~rese~t: Director of PJa-tq ~9 W~'e;r~ F~r'~ng ~;~ft~man
C :'y Attarney ". reoe:rg, and Pr]~cipal E~g~neer Har shman.
M~.C '.~e::.~ye~; ~:?~':e: o~: the meeting of February ~ ,, ;966, be approved as
L~;'~:~NA'. L~:: F~?]~ - PC~L.~C HEARING: Grace Fellowship C~crch = Nort~e~,~t Cor~er
;-,turtn Avenue and "D" Street I USe Of Dwe'.l]nq for Church Services
re a~p'~c'..~tion wa~ :'ead ~ which a request was made fo, permission to use the
ex~.~t[-~ dwe~l~,,g at tr.e northeast corner of Fourth Ave~rzue and "D" Street for church
~rect~r ~f P'~ ~n~ng Warren '~dbm~tted a plot plan noting the ~ocat~on and adjacent
land ute, A c,~ta t~on~l use permit was granted at th~s location for amother church use
~n 1963 b~t ~,e pe,rm]t w~:' never exercised, lhe appl~c~-:.~t w;~'~ be using tee l~ving room
of the, dwe~. ~g for religious services and the appl[cat~o:; st~tes that the congregation
w ~i epp~o~ ;n'~e 35. The church uses granted for th~s l~c,~t]on ~n the past have always
~ee' te-por~rv o~et ."]d ~t [~ assumed that this one wi(I be also. The number of
;~k~:~g :~,'cc; R~;F:o~]ed w~1! serve their purpo:e. Mr. Warr~r~ t~,e~ reviewed the r6com-
~-d~,t~nE: rr-:: r~*f wou(~ halve for approval.
~ f being tr~, z ,~e an~ pqace ~s adverLised, the publ c ~ear~ng was opened.
W~I~ :ar-.~ t~ e~stor~ and the Counselor of the Church spoke in favor of the reques~
'~ey d~:c~ e0 the c~ndit~or requiring paving stating th~s would be f~nar:cially d~ff~~
c~], t~ d) ~ ]c'e they ,are a very small congregation.
Actb~]~y, t~ w~ ~ be e school of ministry - tr~nlng men for the ministry - and they
~o~,~ req~e~', th,:t they be allowed up to 70 member~, which:, they added, wes the figure
~pp' ,cd by ?e ~mm~.~[on for the last applicant.
Membe~ A~ems ;,~.ed h~ many persons could be accommoda[ed ~a this dwelq~g.
'~e applicators st;~ted 70 could be, very comfortmbly. D~rector Warren noted that they
:~q~e~ed 35 orr their ,pp~lcet~on, as their maximum. He added that if the applicants
a~ :~e to go up to 70 they m~st provide parking :-'paces for this qumber.
'~.e p~ ]c:,'-~[ ~em,~'ked that they had no intention of br;ng~Tg ~.~ traffic here; they
~dr~ w~:~t ?:is f;~dre for the r potential gr~th~ ~f ex~eryo~6 comes, there wili be
::hoc* q5 c~r~ end th s would mean 7 cars on the street aL the very most. They plan to
~ave 3 ¢'.erv~ce~ a week, arid the Pa~'tor will be ~[v[,".g im the dwelling.
~emDer Vaden co,anted that th~s Jocat~on ~s on a very ~eev~ly trave'~ed area, and one
c~ ~e b~gge~t prob~em~ here Js ~o get the cars off the street.
~fere bei-:g ro ~urther' comment~ either for or against, tFe hearing was declared closed.
¢irect.~r Warre commented that if th~s were the first t~me such a request were before
?e Commis~ i~3~, ~ coded be considered as a temporary u:se; however, this becomes ~lmost
~ perm~-e : u~ b.~c.eu~e of the numerou~ requests. ~t carrot be called a non-conforming
~ e so p~tk~rg ~ co-~for:~ance w~th the ordinance m~st be prov]ded. As to parking,
t~ ~s ~t tn~ ~r~ter~ect]on of a major street and w~t~ the other cnurch adjacent to
thi~ o~-,e aEd o~e acro~ the street, both coa~d make this same request. The applicant
c~ cot ~ccommod~te p~Tk[ng for 70 per'son~ at this ;oc~t~on - ~o variance fr~ ordinance
r'equireme~ts ha~ been ~equested.
V~c~-Oh~ 'r~ Stewart comme;r~ted o,~ the Director's remarks concerning the repeated use
of t~s ~ocst[o- for church purposes. He felt, however, that the City should do
everyth[r,g they can to provide for this type of use and imposing a condition to pave
~Pe lot is roe much of a hards~',ip; the Commission should waive this requirement.
Mr. W~i]~am ~arshman, PrirJcipa] Engineer, declared ~ perm~:~ent pavement should be A.C.;
for a temporary use, decompossed granite with a certair~ amount of penetration would
last for at Jea:,t two year's.
~emfer Adams ~oted that chis use has been 9ranted ~n the past without imposing the
pavan9 couldSt[oR; however, he now feels that there should be some pavin9 here and
the sp~'ces marked. Director Warren indicated it would have to be some form of durable
surface ~f ~[: ~s to be mar'ked.
Member Vaden moved that the conditional use permit be approved subject to the con-
d]tio~s outWOrked by the Planning Director and that the paving be acceptable to the
City Engineer. Mr. Harshma~ noted that the paving should be for a temporary use ss
approved by the C~ty E~gJneer.
V~ce~Ch~rm~-~ Stewart fell the Commission shouJd i-crease the number to 50 persons
:nstead of 35; thee it was u~reasonable to expect that ~J'~ the people have to park in
t~e '(ot - 'so,ne of txem can park in the street. Member V~der~ declared the Commission
...;bou]d back up t~e ord~r,~nce. Director Warren comme.~ted that if the Commlss~on should
co,~s~der more than 35 persons, they should state ~ the;r ~ecommendation to the Council
that s~e attempt of offstreet parkin9 be made.
{ha~rm~n Stevenson s~99ested the motion state ~t should be ~imited to 35 persons or
h~9,err depepdit}g on the add~t~ona'~ parkin9 spaces they can provide.
Member Va~e"} stated he wou,]d revise his motion.
MSUC: (gr~deE~dy~T) Approval of the request: subject to the fo]lowin9 conditions:
~e C"~'rrch at:er~d~r'.ce shal~ be 'J~m~ted to 50 members p~o/~ded offstreet parkln9
car~ be provided ~ accordance with the zon~n9 ordinance ~n a manner acceptable
to the staff.
the p~tk~9 scheme sha~ be altered to conform w~th the ;ayout presented by the
staff
3. The p~k~9 ]~ot shall h~ve a temporary pavin9 of a dursbie surface subject to the
spec~f~cat~or.s of the C~ty Engineer
4. A'~'~ p~rk~r'9 spaces shaJ'~ be clearly marked.
-2-
S~-ce t~e use ~:¢ temporary, the ~arge tree in the pa,¢k].~g area shai! be retained.
6. 6ec;~u:~;e :~f pr:)x;!m]ty of the property to a reside, ntl;ai area, evening ~ctlvities
7. Th~:'.; u~e sha'l,I be ~m;ted to a period not to 6xceed 2 years.
F~?dings ~ ~ ~oJi~s:
i. f~a[ the gr'?t ;;g 0¢ the conditionai use permit w~i ~ot b~ mater~ally detrl-
mer~ to the pdbl c hea~th, safety or well;ere. Nor:e of the factors delineated
i', ~e zo~g ordlr:e~ce wou~d be sign~f~c8p~tly p~ese~t.
2. ~, char'acter~st~cs of the use proposed are re6~onabiy compatibie with the types
of use pe,'m~t:ted ~ t~e surrounding area. There are two other churches in the
~m~d~,4te, are? a-d the property ~s ~t a heav~3y traveled ~r~tersectlo~,~.
/A¢[A~(CE' - P~r:,. C ;~EAR NU: Shelby a~d Mar~e Curr~e - 302 LeMire Dr'~ve - Request for
?;etback Reduct ~on
D~rector ,f ~i,~rfir, g Warren stated th~s was Cou~c~]I~o~tiated. The original appli-
cyt~or, fi~s~ c,~me before the Commis~;ion on December 6, 1965 requesting a variance
from t:~e garage requirement and that they be ~i¢~ed to construct a carport insEead
of a garage. T'he (omm~ssion de~ied th~s request, a~d i~ was subsequently appealed
to the City Cou'¢c~'l. They referred this matter back to the 6ommiss!on a~d the staff
~o study the prob!em determining whereby a garage couid be accommodated some place
o'~ their ~ot wi~t a set:back reduction, ~f poss~ble.
Tr.e staff hay d~scdssed this proposal with the applicant, and the variance being dis-
cussed tonight ~ll be for a red~ct~o~ ir~ sldeyard setback to zero for the purpose of
locating t~e~r garage. Director Warren submitted ~ pl~ot plan not:~g the location of
the proposed garage, adding that there will be aq ~deqcate driveway to it. The size
of t~e pTopo*ed 9a-a9e ~i~ be 20' x 20~.
'r,~:,~ be~g cr:e t~me ~d p~ace as advertised, the pubt~c hearing was opened.
T~e app'~car, ts;, ~;~e~by and Marie Cuttle, stated they were present to answer any
Member ,&~;ler que¢¢t~oned the reaction of the people who own the adjacent vacant
M~. Ct~'~e exp~a~:ed the ~ot was now be~g sold ~r~d that thane was apparently ~o
obj~ct~o-. '3~p'ectof Warre~ stated the property owner;; were sepal 8 notice of the
There be~9 *o f~ther (ommeqt, e~ther for or ~g~nst, the hearing was declared clo.~ed.
Member Adams deck,fed that this was a very h~ppy sol~tlo~ for this problem, and that
~t o.r:f:orms to the ~equlreme~ts of a
M~t; Ad~ms,-Stewyrt~ Va~a~ce be approved for setback ~eductlon in order to locate and
cor:~t~cct ~s 20~ x 20 [400 square foot) garage co~-,ir~ected to the house and located
w~h or:e co,~ner to.~cP~ng the ~ide property !~ne and 6' from the rear property line.
;~' g**r,~9e ~:~J be. constructed in accordaoce w~th the plot plan submitted with the
~pp'~
1. lhere ~,re pr~ct'c~ differences and unnece%s~ry hard.¢.h~ps within the meaning o+'
Ord~:-,a'~c~ Ko. 398 ~:~ amended wb~ch would rest, t ~n the strict complfance of the
prov~ ~or::-; of s<!d ord~na-~ce. So ~:ated as delineated be'law.
2. l~e~e ?e except ona'l c~ircumstances and conditions ~pp~c,able to the property
he'e~n ~volved or the ~,~tended use thereof that do ;~ot app;y generall¢ to
p~operty o¢ class of uses ~n the same zone. The co~f~gbcat~on of the lot and the
d~s~g~ of the house d~ct:~;te this area as the o~ly logical building site for a
9~rage. '~ecause of the steep topography to the ~;outb, the ~ntent of the ordinance
for ~deqd~te ~Jgh[ ~d a~r' will still be
3. The gr'ant~g of th]s variance ~s ~eces~ary for the preservation of the sub-
=;ta*t~al prapercy r~ght of the aDpllcar:L A substantial ~nvestment has been
placed ~.~¢ the or~gJr~'; conversion amd tv, e r:ew locatio'q is the oniy piece left
o,,' t~e Jot ta Oog[c,~!"y I]ocate the new g~rege.
4. ]~'~nt~rg t~s variance wi]i not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
~r' ~rjur~ou~ to the property JmprovemenLs ~n the zone or d~strict in which said
property ~; ~oc~ted. Although th[s garage
appr'ox~m~teiy 75 feet from the front property ~ne. ~n addition, the lot to the
we%~ [% vacant at this time and large enough to locate a~y buildings away from
th~s s~de yard, ~f des]red.
FinAL MAP - ~::o~ day Estates Subd~v~s]on, Uo[t No. i:
D;rec/or of ~l,~r:q~n9 Warren ~ubmitted t. ne map exp]ai~mg that t:n[s was the first
u~[t of the toLe~ develop~nt approved by the Commission,, kn~m as the Jaehn Annexa-
rio';. !it c~,~ta r% 31 ~ots ~r;d ~ located just ~outk of Loma Verde School and on the
east s~de of k,~;it~,~ ¢r[ve. Thi-' first unit w;il involve a portion of Orange Avenue
~,-!d two cu~-'de'-s~r::~. ~he staff race,ends, ~pproval w~th a few cond]tions which
Mr. Warren exp;a:ne,d. Mr. Warr'e~ t~,,en d]scu:,~ed the alignment of Orange Avenue
tt. eting th~5 w~s qce::t;oqed at the time of the aonexa"~3'q hearing. ?ia ]~d~caced the
proposed a]~g~me-,t o¢ the city ~d thaL of the County and t:ke San Diego Gas & Electric
']ght-of-wey. Re ;dded th~ matter w~Oil probably age'n be d~cbs~ed at the Council
mee~]rg whet, th~5 map [~ considered.
~S.C ;3uae,r-~¢~Je':i Reco~end approval of the f;r:a] map sub[ecl to the followin9
t. ~rce ~ tentative romp for th~s subdivision w::¢ approved pr[or to enactment of
3rd~*~rce 956, t:~,e ~*st¢,~Jation of undergrou,qd ct;i~[~es is qot mandatory. How-
ever, ~z ~;[r'o';gt~ recommended that the subdivider pi;:ce h[s utilities under~
ground ~r~ accordance with Ordinance No.
2. ~'ke fica me, p sr~l~ not be submitted for Council actioq urtt]l ali feea are paid
~nd 2Ii nece~.~ry deeds, slope r~ghts and e,~se~ct~ as required by the City
Eng~-,ee* have been d¢;~Vered to the C~ty.
Z'ENTA[[fE ~AF -, L.oma '~erde Subd]v]s]on
Df¢ector' of P]~n¢~,-g War~en s~,bmitted the tentative map no~,~ng the iocation as the
east s~de of r~!top Or~ve adjacent to the Loma '¢erde School and containing 1.~ acres.
The '!ot~¢ w~e 9f-:ded and left by the school when ~t wa~ developed; there w~ll be 8 lots
front~n9 on ! ~l~top Dr~ve. lbe developer ~s sub[e-cf to the underground utilities
requ!remer~t for '~.~.', ~division. Director Warren th, e.~ noted the conditions of approval
:;uggesti~g also tk=.t tre subdivider construct e far, ce along ~11 but the H~lltop Or]va
';~de s~ce ~t ~s ~.d;~:e~t to the school and in .fuch c~,se~ problems w]th adjacent
p~ygro~nd ~ct~v~t:es ~requent~y result after the hou~e::~ ere occupied.
Mr. Fraak Wh[t~r~gto~, the ~ubdivider, felt the fence~ ,~:: the present time, was ~n
u?re~onabie request - that he does propose to construct fences after the ho~s are
up. ~r'. W~r'-e-~ ~ndic,~ted the condition was riot unre,~soq~b~e - tk~t it was a rare
;'ubd~v[S[o~ ~od~y that d,id not construct fences around the properties. He added thi>~
c~n ~e dor~e ~t the t~me the building permits were ~ssued.
~,?. W~tt~gt~n :,,:~d he objects to the co~dit~on of the ~rderground wiring. He
?taCed that: t~'e :~E,reet ~mprovemcnts have already been put in here~ the street is paved,
amd the poles .~r'e s~ready installed aJon9 R~l]top Dr~ve. Ne declared it was an un-
re.::~ot~e req,e~t t:o hs~ve to 9o and take down poles already installed and to put in
cmd~rgrou,r~d wJr~n9. Ne commented that he had th~s same. problem with his tract ]n
[mper~ :Peach ~r}d with the }.ff.A., ~nd th.~t the7 waived the requirement.
'A
Mr. Warren s~d r~ di cc~$r~¢ed [h~s with a represen*~,tive of the F.H. . today, a~d the
requirement wo~d probes,7 be imposed by them. The su~d~v;s[on to the south is 9oir~9
to have urder9rou~nd w~rin9 6~thou9h they are no~ required to do so: also, it is our
dnde~stand~n9 that tk.e Fubd~v~sio~ to the west in the County will have under9round
dt~litJes~ M! Wa re~ :~dicated the c~ty has to start ~omewhere and should exercise
~*ery posslb]e opportunity to under9round utilities.
Hember Adams co~ented that the applicant can apply to the Council for a variance
from the ordinance. ~t~s a r'equ~rement of the ord~arce and the Commi~;sJon could not
wD~ve the prov[s~o~ by recommendin9 approval of the map. City Attorney Lindber9 a9reed~
staten9 s public hearin9 would have to be called. F~e property owners ~n the sur-
rou~d~r~9 area have to be 9[ve~ an opportu~ity to voice their opinions on it.
M~U,3 (S~e:w,~rt-vede~) gecommend approval of the tentative m.~p subject to the follow[n9
1. Ali ut~tles shall be installed und~r9round ~n conformity w~th recently
~ppreved Ord[~ar~ce ~956.
~:. At the time bu~]di~9 permits ~re issued, fences muse be gonstruc:ted alon9 the
r:orth, e~st arid south bouedar]es of the subdivision.
3. A!~ slope~, sFfi~ be p]s:~ted and 9r~ded ~ accorda~qce w]th the spec]fJcatJons
or~ ~'~]e ~ the P~amrt~-,9 Department a~d P!frm~c9 Comm~ss~o~ re~o!ut]on.
~c.Q~;g~; ~'~R E~;L<~ ]N U: C0~D~T'~0~ L JSE PERM. i Nort~ F~rk Mortgage Company -
~e_ Office
A letter from the No,'th Park Mo~-t9a9e Company was read J~ which Lhey requested an
exLet;sJo~ of o~e year o~ tk.,e[r conditional use permit to use o-;e of the model homes
f.~ a _~ ,es off]ce.
Hcmber Adams commer~ted that it was i~ the i~terest of: the c~ty to facilitate the
r-e~]n9 of the rest of ~he homes in this area.
~45~: (Stewert-Aoems) One year extension be reco~erded for approval.
-5"
_ P;~.,'q~rq ~w ~ ~el2r_ed to ~taria~ces
Member Adam: ,~a,O ~,r~ excerpt from a ~3peech given by Mr. ~e~ ~ well-known Planning
~tto~,~'ey, ~* t~e ~%t So~ D~ego Pla~og Congress meet~:~g. Mt. Lateen discussed toe
_tte P~q~ ~W whic~ pevm, t.~ a P 0~g Comm~s~o~ to gr~t a v~r~a~ce only when
~pec~::'J c~cumsta~ce~ ~pp'J[ceb~e to the property, includ~[og s[ze, shape, topography,
i~(,,.~ oc etc~, wrere the ~:tr~ct ~ppl~catio~ of the zo?i~g ordinance deprives s~ch
p~operty of ire privileges er~oyed by other pr'opert~es Jr~ t~e v~c~ity under identicaJ
z:,~,r~g cJ~ss~f~cet~?-'. A variance gra~ted should be s~bject to sach co~dJtions t~at
wo;]d '~oL co~<t~ t~te ~pec ~dJ privJ leges consistent wi th the ~ ~m[ tat ions ~pon whicr,
ot~r propert~e~ were s~te~t:ed. Mr. Adams felt that th~s provision establishes a
J~m;tat~o~ ap~,~ t~e powers of a city to grant varlance~.
. ~'ty Attorney Li~dberg stated that he concurs w~ch the I~ng~age of this State Plann[ng
Acz ~oweve-, t~e Comm~s~op m~t recognize that p~a~nJ~g and zoning are local
mun~c~p~'~ ~ffafrs ~od Cn~]a V~:~ta is a c~arter c~tv which has a specific ordinance
e:~tabl~n~rg var]farce procedures. ThJ¢ ~ compJ]c~t:ed by the fact that the City also
~fs ~ ~pec'~f c o d r.a~ce adoptiqg the State PJanr~i~g Ac~. ~io~efu]]~, tr~e State Legis-
lature ~ ~tempt,ng to establish guide ]i,~es in th~s .~re~ which wou?d eliminate the
use variance ~d bring cities back to the sound ba~;~s of planning and zoning concepts.
Mr. ~[ndberg added that the c~ty ~tii] controls the matter of their ~n ordinance,
since [t ~. a specific ord[nanc:e howe~er, he st,'Ii mai,tta:~s that the use variance
~ conf![c~ w~t~: the State Jaw ~r:d the corsen~us of ~he peop'Je invoived.
br~dergrouad Ct~t
~e~ber Vade.:] discussed the subject of underground uti l it e~ whereby proposed sub-
d~vf~:[o,"~ have the overhead utilities in:, sdc~ as tn the ca~e toh[ght (Loma Verde~.
Fe re'it t:~e ~ g~ego Gas & Electric C~pany should be c~are of the ordinance so that
t~ey won t go ~heed and pdt ~La the uLJlJty poles.
D~rectof ~e~frem stated tPey are well aware of the ordinance since they wrote and rewrote
~t to suit tqem~;e~¥e~. The only control t~e C~ty has [~ th~oug~ this subdivision
ord{narce; ~owe~,er, t~e poles [~ this p~rt[cu]ar subdivision went [~ before we had this
ord~ nance.
Ne~ber Adams: m ~ ~r
e t oined the uti~'l[ty poles at the new subd~vis~or; at First and "KH Streets
(~aje'st~c ~er'~ce~ ~e st~ed he talked to t~e gent~emeq T. Fe[e and was [nformed that
uqdergro~nd dL~]t~es wodJd have cost ~8000. fO~ L~e ~2 'Jots. ]he ut[lit:y poles are
set ~n ~r~)r~t ~)f the ho~ hece~ whereas~ ~r~ Adams added, they should have been set in
back of t~e ~o~. ~e felt the C:Jty should h~ve Pome control over this sort of thing.
],(~ecto: N~fre' ,remarked that tn some cases~ it is not ract~ca~
p ~ to set the poles back,
since qu ze ~ few ~ubd~v[sion~ have moved Lo the h~'~]~:Jde ia~ds. Hember Adams stated
~e rea~zea ~h.~[ and ~n th~s particuJar subdivision, ~t w~s pcact[caJ; the poles
stal~ed ~ere are a detriff~,qt to the value of the proper tfe~, Director ~arren stated
that the proposed ~ w
:e zo~)~,g ordinance would require a cor~ditionaJ use permit for
utility fac:~)[t[e~ cot ~ subd)v)s)ons.
HSUC (Vader..~tewa,r[') Heet:[n9 ~djourn to ~arch 2], ~966. ~eet:~K~g adjourned at 8:15 p.m~
R spectfu~jy subm~ted,
~ Sec,'e t~ r'y
APPROVAl OF M~NUTES
Member Adams referred to a statement on page 6 of the m~nute~ ~n 'reference to
pJann]~9 laws on variances in which he was quoted as statir~9 t:k8t the provisJo~
"estab(~shes a limitation upon the powers of a city to gr~z varJsrces~"" ~'~e asked
that th~s be omitted as it did not express his thoughts o~ tke m~tLer~ rgth,~r, he
felt the City Attorney should provide the Commission w[Lh gu~d~r~ce on tr~s matter.
Mab~C (Guyer-Stewart) Minutes of March ~ and 7 be approved w~th [k,e suggested change.
.,',i~op ~eJ9hts Subdivls~o~. /~, l/. ~t/_ ~
Member Adams commented that at a previous mee~ir,g, he z, gid he was to~d it would cost
$8,000° to put in under9oued utilities i;n this subd~visior. ~e recently noted that
t~e ~igure of $3,000. was quoted by Mr~ Pembettor of tt,e ~ar; Cie9o Gas & Electric
,o~pa~W as the total cost of th~s i~st3~atio~. F~ requested that the m~nutes re~ect