HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1966/12/05 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE C~TY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
December 5, 1966
The regular meeting oF the City Planning Commlsslon was held on the above date at 7 p.m.
in the Counc~ Chamber, Civic Center, with the following members present~ Stewart~
Gregson, Adams, Rice, and Guyer. Absent: None. Also present: Director of Planning
War~en, Associate Planner Manganell~ Junior Planner Lee, C~ty Attorney Lindberg~ and
Princ~pa! Engineer Harshman.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSdE (Adams=Rice) Minutes of the meetings of November 7 and 21 were approved, as mai!ed.
PUBLIC HEARiNG~ Variance - Les Chateaux - Flair Annex Subdivision - Reduction in side
yard setback from 5' to 0' and increase in sign area from 150' to 196'
The application w~ read ~n which a request was made for reduction of side yard setback
From 5 feet to zero for the purpose of constructing a temporary structure tg be used
~s a ~;ales center for the Flair and Flair Annex Subdlvlslons. Permission ~s a!~:o re.-
;uested f~¢ an increase in allowed sign area from 150~ to 196 plus a 12' x 2~~ ~de~ti-
fic~tlon s~gn.
D,irector of Planning ~arren subm]tted a n~p and plot pJan no~]ng the !oration of the
proposed request:, and the areas for the requested signs. He noted thaz tke sale~
a~ea compound will go ~n dnder a conditional use permit, and since the signs requested
~r'e in excess of the ordinance requirements, the applicant is requesting thi~ variance.
Mr. Warren s~a~ed zhere is a parcel map on file splitting this parcel ~nto four lot:s.
The tentative map for th~5 area was approved which showed this area being served by a
cul-de-sac- ~t fs no~ constructed as yet, and will not be at the time they plan to
bu~!d their sales office. At ~.ome future date when the street is dedicated, this will
:i!! have to be removed or , will be necessary to obtain an encroachment permlt.
M... warren then reviewed the condit~o~ the staff would ask be !mposed i ~hat al!
be set b~ck at lea~t 2.5 feet from East: Rienstra Street. Member Guyer questioned
~'hetker any o~ the ~igns would be ~ighted. Mr. Warren stated he'had no knowledge of
this.
"his being the ti~ ~nd place as advert!sad, the pub!lc hearing was opened.
Mr. Bernie Friedman, represent!ng Les Chateaux, stated the signs would not be lighted.
~e a]so declared chat they are withdrawing the request for the 12~ x 2& s~gn as
requested ~n thei~ application.
'¥ere being ~o ~rthEr comment, ~ither for or against, the hearing was declared
Member Guyer felt there wa~; nothing unusual ~n this request that the Commission hash :
considered previously with other requests.
Member Adams noted that the new proposed ordinance being stud~ed would ali ow the sign~
request:ed by the appl;cant. ~e favors the request.
MSU£ (Guyer-Greg~gn) Approval of reduction in ~ide yard setback from 5' to O' and the
¢ol]owlng signs: Four 4~x5' s~gns at entrance to models; one 4'x8' sign on sales
center; and one 7'xi2 s:gn at the entrance to sales compound. The approval
ubjec! to the following: Ail s~gns shal! be set back at ]east 25 from Ea:~t R:enstra
-1-
F~ndings be 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. There are e×cept~onal circum~tancer~ and conditions applicable to the property
here~n involved cr the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to property
or c!ass of uses in the same zone. The property lines affected by the 0~ setback
w!~': not ex~t at the time of street dedication for the final subdivision map.
App~![cant will :ken have to seek an encroachment permit from Engineering. The 196
:nacre foot sign area recommended by the staff would conform with the proposed sliding
~:cale ~f our new zoning ordinance which is under study.
3. Granting such variance ~? necessary for the preservation of the subs~:anzia~
property right of the app!icant. A strict application of the ordinance ]n th]s case
~ould prohibit the applicant from locating a temporary sales office in a logical
setting for the merchand sing of homes, the proposed signs will conform to other
variances granted ~n the area.
4. Granting ~uch variance will not be materially detrimental to the public weifare
or injurious to the property improvements in the zone or district in which said
property is located. !t is temporary with adequate off-street parking.
Chairman Stewart stated that #8 on the agenda has been canceled.
PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - ,James Webster - 619 W. Manor Drive - Request for reduction
in permitted distance between buildings 6" to 3'
The app!ication was read in which a request was made for permission to construct a
fam!ly room addit[on to the exisclng dwelling which will be 3~ from the existing
garage ~he City ~od£ requires a 6" distance between such buildings.
D~rector of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location ~nd adjacent
b'e~. He sa!d it appeared from [he s~ze and shape of the lot that it would be ~mpo:ts~bie
to make the addition they want without this variance.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Eo D. Heywood, representing Triple A Nome improvement and the owners, stated ~hat
phone calls were made for the s!de yard setbacks and clearances on it, and from th~s
there was some misunderstanding either on the part of their company or the P =e~!~g
and Engineering Departments. The subdivision created four poorly-shaped Iots, one
of whlch is the sdbject of ~his request. The owners will not accept a sma!let
room, therefore, the request. There will be no windows in the wall closes~ ~o the
garage. Mr. Heywood then discussed the odd shape of the lot and indicated that he
went to the neighbors on both sides of this property and they had no objection.
reiterated tha~ this ~s the only possible way in which to construct this add tion onto
the dwelling.
~here being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
~ember York declared that in view of the comments made by the applicant's representative,
that because of the odd-shaped Iot~ this ~s the only possible way to n~r'Jct th
addition, and it is a d~stance between two buildings on the same lot in the center
area of the proper(y which would not affect the adjacent properties, that he would be
in favor o{ 9rantln9 the ve~r~ance.
Member Guyer comment:ed that the odd-shaped lot justifies granting the variance.
Member G,egson ascertained that there was a cinder block wall on one side of the property
and ~ !s~ge hedge and wal on the other side of the property,
MSdC (6regson,-glce) Approval of variance for permission to construct a !4' x 18 addition
To the rear of exis*!ng dwelling which will extend to w!thin 3' of s detached garage
"ocated approximateJy 60~ from the street.
,, T'hat there are practica] differences and unnecessary hardships within the meaning of
Ordinfnce No. 398 as amended which would result in the strict compliance of the provisions
of ~aid ordinance, So stated as delineated below.
2. there are exceptional circumstances and conditions app!icabie to the property herein
~nvOlved or the intended use ~hereof that do not apply generally to property or class o¢
uses in the same zone. The lot configuration narrows towards the rear limiting extension
into th~ are~. the lot~ ~n this ~ubdlviaion are in general rectangular a~lowing for
iogical extensions ~nto the rear:, but four (4) lots within this subdivision have the
~ame shape.
3. G~ant!ng ~ucr variance ~s necessary for the preservation of the substantial property
rlghr oF the appl~canto ~he house ~ a sma]'! two-bedroom, but there: is adequate square
foot,ge on the property for e~pansion. This expansion is not possible without the
var;ance due to ~he lot configuration.
~. Gr~nti ng such variance wli! not be material]y detrlmenta~ to the: public we Fare or
injurious to the property improvements in the zone or district in which said property
is located. The proposed addition is located we]] back on the /ut and the distance
between buildings affects the prlncipal property owner and not adjoining property.
PUBLIC ~EAR!NG: Variance - Ot:!s and Patsy Davis - 53 Broadway- Request for M-1 use on
C-2 property
]he appi~cat~on w~s re=d ir which permission is requested to locate a pa;nting and
body and Fender ~hoF at the property located at the southeast: corner of Broadway and
Mc[ntosh, an M-! u~e on property zoned 6-2.
O~ector of Plar'~n!n9 ~arren submitted a pint p!~n noting the location and the adjacent
land use and zoning. He explained the operation of the business and noted that
detailed plans for the construction have not been submitted, Construction pians shou!d
be subject to staff approval. Mr. Warren explained that with a conditional uae permit,
t~i* use would be permi'tted in the new proposed zoning ordinance under a "C-T'~ zone which
would be piaced upon this property; present:!y~ it is permitted only in the M-I zone.
He then r~oted a pe~'~o:~ o~ protest received signed by 9 property owners and II renters.
~'. Warren the~ '~f('red to the conditior, s the staff would ask be imposed if the
variance is granted.
this being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
M,. Paul ~iller, representi ng the applicants, stated they have been in this neighborhood
foe the past II years, and this type of business has been in operation here for the past
20 years, lhe cond!tions referred t:o by the Director has been presented to the app]icants
aad they have agreed to comply with all of them.
Member Guyer d~scus~ed the proposed noise level.
Di'ecto¢ Warren reviewed the list of conditions. He added that a condition should also
be ~m~oosed restricting the hours of operation, because of the protest received.
Mrs. Oonavon, speaking for Der mother who lives on Chula Vista Street, about one-half
block ~rom this property, opposed the request, declaring that Broadway is now a
beautiful avenue and some less objectionable business should be brought in. She then
aue~:tloned whether this would be a sound-proof building.
Chairman Stewart noted that the Planning Director had suggested the condition that the
~outh wall be without openings and that all activities be within the building. Mr.
Stewart felt this would take care of that potential problem.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
Member Guyer suggested the setback on the east s~de be reduced' to zero because of the
~;ol~d wall.
Mr. Warren explained that there was a provision in the zoning ordinance that when
adjacent to 3 residential zone, t~ere must be a side yard not less than 10 % of the
w~dth, but that such side yard need not exceed 5 feet. In this case, iL would have to
be a minimum of 5 feet unless another variance is sought.
Member Guyot felt it should fol!ow the same pattern as that across the street which
has a zero setback.
The Commission discussed the petition of protest. Chairman Stewart commented that
these peop!e do not have any flnancia! interest in the project other than they think
it will be detrimental to the value of their property. The new proposed zoning ~-~
ord!nance wou!d change all of Broadway and w~ll permit this type of use with a con~
ditional use permit.
Member Rice questioned the elevation with respect to the lots behind it.
M~'. Warren noted that the lot goes uph ll to the east and this will need tome grading
and a retaining wall. Mro Miller declared it was 5 feet above street level.
The Commission discussed reducing the setback on the east side, and they concurred it
should be reduced to 15 feet, rather than the 25 feet, as suggested in the staff
comments.
The Commlss[on then aiscuss, ed the hours of operation. Mr. Otis Davis, the applicant,
s-ated he has conducted this business in this area for the last 10 years and hasn't
had a complaint from anyone. His present hours of operation are from 8 to 5:, and he
would request the Commission not to restrict him on these hours of if an emergency
comes in after the~, brad,rs end he has to work on it. Chairman Stewart asked him if the
hours 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. would be suitable. Mr. Davis answered it would. Member Adams
fel~ tha~ the hours should be restricted to the noise operations only.
MSUC (Adams-York) Approval of variance for automobile painting, and body and fender
works business at 53 Broadway, subject to the, following conditions:
to Both preliminary and final site plans along with flnal elevations be approved by
the P!anning sta+f. Particu!ar care shall be taken to assure any noise or fumes ~-
w~'ll not be directed toward the residential area to the east.
2. A ~andscap~ng plan will be submitted along with final site plans, and shall provide
for ~wo (2.) stree~ trees on Broadway and three (3) along Mclntosh Street with the
remaining area between sidewalk and curb to be filled with concrete.
3. A!I driveway openings and traffic circulation within the property shall be approved
by the C~ty Traffic Engineer. Any unnecessary curb cuts shall be eliminated and
replaced w[th curb.
4. ParkJng areas for both employees and customers shall be identified as we as storage
and working areas on the property.
5. All signs For this site shall require staff approval with the aggregate sign area
not to exceed 286 square feet. This figure corresponds to formula proposed under
IIC~TI' regulations.
6. Setbacks for all buildings as follows:
Broadway - 20"
Mclntosh - 10'
South Side- O'
East Side - 15'
7. South and east sides to be fenced with solid wall subject to staff approval.
8. All uses shall be conducted wholly within completely enclosed buildings, except for
specific uses granted by Planning Commission resolutions. The east wall of the
buildings shall be without openJngs other than any necessary door.
9. The hours of operation for any work which would create noise is limited to the
hours of 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.
Findings be as fo!lows:
I. 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 pro~
visions of said ord;nemce. So stated as de!ineated below.
2. f'here are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to the property
here~n involved or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to property
or class of uses in the same zone. Property is located in an area of traffic-oriented
uses which would qualify for a conditional use permit to allow for auto painting and
body work under our proposed C-7 zone. The only method of approval under our ex[sting
procedures is by zone variance.
3. Granting this fa*~ance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial property
r~ght of the app~,'ce~r. Under present zoning ]aws, it is necessary to app!y for a
variance for this type of use or locate on M-1 zoned property. This location is best
suited for trafflc'-orlented uses to compliment the existing uses in the area, but would
not lend itse!f to rezoning To ,Mi1.
4. Granting this variance wi1] 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. This use is similar in nature To the existing commercial uses adjacent to
the property, providing all activities are confined to within an enclosed building.
-5-
PUBL!C HEARING: Variance - John M. Sachs - 545 "E" Street - Request to use front setback for parking in R-3 zone
'The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction of front yard set-
back from 30' to 10' for the purpose of utilizing this area for offstreet parking
purposes.
Director of Planning Warren noted on the plot plan that the property measures 190 x292'
and by ordinance, there would be allowed a maximum of 55 units; they propose 52 units.
They can meet the 1½ to I parking, but to do this properly, they are requesting per-
mission to park in the front setback which is not permitted in a residential zone.
They propose a 10' landscaped area across the front and a decorative wall, and a 2'
wide planter ~n front of their building. The building will set back approximately 32'.
D~rec[or Warren sa~d the staff has worked to some extent with the developer on the
plans, and most of the problems were solved; however, there appears to be no solution,
based on the number of units they need and the plan they desire, to accommodate the
required number of spaces. There fore, rather than to eliminate units, they are
requesting this variance to park in the front setback. Mr. Warren [hen discussed a
similar variance approve! for an apartment complex on Fourth Avenue, where the approval
was to 5 feet with a 42" decorative wall. This proved not to be Too successful, since
they have a lot of paved area and little landscaping. In this particular case, there
will be 10 feet of landscaping and little paved area~ Mr. Warren then reviewed the
conditions the staff would ask be imposed.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public i,cqring was opened.
Mr..John Sachs, the applicant, discussed his proposed development noting that the
size of the apartments will be larger than those presently in the :~rea He declared
he will fence the entire property with a chain-link fence.
Chairman Stewart felt the fence should be of a more solld construction. , ,- Sachs
stated he didn't want a solid fence as there is always the possibility of tl.c tenants
backing into ~t. ~e indicated he would compromise and construct the chain linlt i'ence
that has the slats ~n it.
City Attorney Lindberg stated thet imposing a condition for a fence on the rear and
side of the property is not a condition to be imposed on this application which
requests a varlancc involving only the front setback. The parking could exist in [hose
rear and side areas with no fencing. If the request had come for the rear or side
yard parking, the Commission might make such an imposition or condition. Mr. Lindberg
further commented that a so!id wa'll would be more desirable to elimi~ te the problems
of parked cars to the adjacent property line.
Member Adams stated he does not agree with the Attorney's reasoning since the
Commiss!on has to look upon this as e matter of approving the entire project, and this
h~nges on the front yard parking.
Member Guyer asked how many units would be lost if the applicant met the variance
requirements. Mr. Sachs stated it would probably be up to 8 units.
There being no Further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
Member Adams asked how many cars would be parked in front. Mr. Warren said they
propose 6 spaces. Mr. Adams fe!t these spaces would never be used since, for one
thing, it is parallel parking.
-6-
Member York commented that it seemed to him that if the 30' setback in this area is
correct, that parking should not be allowed in it. This setback has been imposed to
give open space a~d '!andscaping. Mr. York discussed the two apartments in this area on
"E" Street, one having a driveway through the front setback, and the other one having
landscaping on their 30 foot setback I the difference is quite noticeable. If the 30"
setback for' this particular property is not proper, then the Commission should change
the setback; however~ they should still not allow parking in the front setback. The
ordinance is very specific about not ailowlng parking in the f~ont setback.
Member Rice suggested the wall in front be raised to 5 feet and this would screen the
parking in front. Director Warren indicated that to prevent a traffic hazard, the
wall wou!d have to set back five feet from the sidewalk.
Chairman Stewart said he has a!ways felt that a 30 foot setback for R-3 zoned land is
an imposition on the owners, this deprives the owner of the full use of his land.
Or~g~naily, this partlcu]ar area was zoned R-1 and the 30 foot setback was established
then.
Member York pointed out that at present:, the construction in the area was m~nimaf;
however, in the future this will change and ff the Commission grants this variance, they
will be setting a precedent here. If they approve this, the Comm~sslon should rea!ly
take a look at this 30 foot setback, and if necessary, they should change the setback,
and require the parking on the side and rear, where the ordinance states it belongs.
Director Warren discussed the setback requirement. He indicated there were a number
of determinations %o be made in establishing a front setback. At the present time,
a 30 foot setback ~s not imposed on any property zoned R-3 - that is, in new subd~v~sions¢
etc. However, there is something to be said for deeper setbacks along major streets,
although deep setbacks have been considered unreasonable in many areas. One of the big
objections heard to any resldent~a! development on a major street ~s the proximity of
!~v~ng units to the passing traffic. Mr. Warren added that one cannot ignore the
aethest~c value given to deeper setbacks. As for having a building set back 30 feet
and parking ~:~ front, or a building set back 15 feet and parking in back, ~e can't
say which ~ more de~rable, s~nce there have been quite a bit of adverse comments to
those dew,opmen~s having p~rking in front. Mr. Warren added that the staff is
ducting a study of setbacks ~n the central part of the City.
Cheirm~ SL~,~art questioned the Commission approval of front yard parking ~or a sub-
d~vls~on, .just eas~ o~ the Freeway on Woodlawn. Director Warren commented that the
approvai was for wider driveways, and they could back across the property line, but
the parking is all ~r~ garages. The Commlss~on discussed th~s~ but felt that approval
was given ~or front yard parking.
Mr. Frank F~r~ir~ 3715 Putter' Drive, stated he was neither for or ag~,st it~ but
suggested the C~,.~i~ss~on reduce the parking space requirements by 6 spaces so that
the applicant can maintain his 30 foot setback. Member Adams declared he didn't go
along w~th this suggestion; Member York said he preferred this to allowing t~em to
park ~n the front setback.
Member Rice pointed out two spaces which he felt were questionable and would be a
"blind" parking space and thereby a traffic hazard.
Member York commented that this is exactly what you get when you are trying to get
maximum density of development, which with the prevalent type of development, is
imprac:tlcal.
MemOer Adams remarked thor the primary considerat ~n was parking and that the building
Should be varied to get the required parking.
Member York agreed, adding that there are many places that do not lend themselves to
such a deve!opmen~ because of the required parking - that people purchasin9 property
~uch as this shou!d design the complex with the parkJn9 in mind. He added that if the
{ommisslon deq~ed this request, the applicant can always submit another request for
~ reduction in setback°
Member Guyer indicated there were no exceptional circumstances about this property.
.e suggested the matter be continued for two weeks in order for the staff to study
~hi~ area - [hgt there is an ex[stin9 20 foot setback across the street.
!'he Commi>>:or~ fe!r nothing wou~d be gained by continuin9 the matter.
MSUC (York*Adams) Denlai of request based on the fact that no exceptional circumstances
or hardships pertaining ~o the property, as delineated in the ordinance, cou!d be
found wh~c~ wou!d j~stify g~anting the varb nce.
C~a!rman Stewart to!d the applicant ~e had the right ~o appeal thus decision to the
City Cou~cii wJ~h~m lO days of his notification.
PuBLiC HEAR!NG (Cent:d) Proposed Ordinance Establishin9 C-V Zone and Providin9 for S~te
Pian Centre! ~n Commercial Zones
Di~eczor of Planning Warren reviewed the proposed ordinance commenting that it will be
primarily intended for those areas az freeway interchanges. Along with this particu!ar
ordinance is a provision that ~pplies to the existing C-/ and C-2 zones - a prov~sion
for staff site p!ar~ ar,d architectural review.
Mr. (!~r,t Machews~ Lyqwaod ~!Jis, co-owner of Cavalier Meier Hotel at 7~0 E Street,
~:aid he was concerned =:UOd~ thc provision for s!gns - the restriction of their height
ar,d whether ~ney ~n be flashJn9. ~e questioned whether a motel or restaurant could
come in ard ~sk for a var~aece [o permit th~s type of sign for freeway locations.
DirecTor Warren commen:ed about the proposed ordinance - he declared t b ac it seeks
~o determine what ~hou!d be needed and is necessary for sign requirements. One
problem wh?cb has confronted ~he staff and caused all the variance requests is [he
supp!ementa! D zone re~ic~J~9 the sign area to a total of 50 square feet. This
o. di~ance s~tows more latiLude than this O zone, but it stil] precludes ~he tower
~9~o Almost ~y ordi~aece precision Js subject ~:o a variance request.
M~. ;ramk Fe~rc!'~, ~7 ~ Pi!:er O~ive, Boni[:a. questioned the uses permitted l~ this
[-~ zone and asked w~ether someone wantln9 to put in a Florist shop, drug store, or
~ete~.:arian cliq~c would have to come to the Plann~n9 Commission for approve!.
[~.ma~ S:ewa~t fel~ the uses would have to be touris[-oriented. City Attorney
~r~dber9 que~tior~ed whelher these uses woulo perhaps be allowed in the lobby of a
hOT e ~.
M~. ~erre~ra re!t the ordinance should be more specific on the uses i he is th~nkln9
md;~!ly o¢ a f!orist shop, car ~¢sh, dry cleaning shop, and vet clinic, and questioned
(~ai-m~; Stewart dec!ared that each one of the uses mentioned wou!d have to bear a
re!6tio¢~ 'o the geographic location of the C-V area.
Mr. Ferre]ra ~poke of: the location he had in m~r~d indicating that it would get the
Mex!co traffic-bound trade and they would be more apt to stop at This tocat~on because
of the added services. Mr. Ferre~ra clarified the dry cleaning shop stating it wouid
be a plck-~up services and not a dry cleaning p]ant. He asked about a grocery store
i- th~s zone,
M~, Stewart cla~med he never saw either a florist shop or a vet c~ic at a~y
he ~topped trroughout h~s travels.
Mr. E~r]es ~rowr, co-o~-~er of zhe motel at 7]0 "E" Street, ~tatea he was opposed
~h ~ ord~'~ce. ~e felt ~he Commission should not have the fu]( contro~ over wh~t
or wk;e~ ~s~'t to~r~st~or'.e~t, ed. ~n his particular area, they had p!a~s for a barber
shop, ~q~o, ~tore, ~d beouty shop wh ch they feel are added services to the travel-
og public. Amy bus'ness w~,'th[o ~ moEel is leased out and operated by different
per~o~e~ tko, the owners of the motel.
Membe~ York meqt o~ed t~e ~ect~oo [o the new proposed zoning ordinance u~der study
which wobJd a~cx~ P!~ooed Ur~t Development or the Precise Plan modifying zone designed
D~ector W6rreo ~ted th~s was correct a~d that [t would pr'or,de th~c
~equ~remer~t~ of ~ zone wou]d not be applicable based on an overall p]~-, approved
the Comm~ on ~ if [t ca~ be ~hown tha~ it would be a better deveiopment and
f~d[ngs ~re made.
City Attorney L[~dberg stated that ~ormally Jn zones for commercia~.-tourlst deve~opme~t~
you wou~d allow a v~r~etf of u~e~ ~o ]o~g as those uses were directed toward the
traveler and tourist. For example~ the Commission would allow a drv-c'~e3r:~og establish-
ment w~th[o a mote1 ~,here a person staying there would bring h~s goods, bbt it would
not be allowed to be advertised to the public genera'~ly and thereby completely
charging ~ke c~ ~-er of ~he de~e'.opme~t. Th]! ~ an area t~ey ~h~u~d study w~th~n
E~tv A-~o-i"e, ~ ~dt~rg decJered that th~s type of development is ope~ ,~ the
~/~],ev are: rod~/ b.~r f~', S~-' O~ego'~ R-'3 zone, they ~ave these f,~c~ '~t~ef but are ~ot
~,1 owed to -;d.e~,~:~ t) ~he general public; however, he is sure the gepera~ public
wod~d Ques;t[on how the C~ty could restric~ h~s business to the genera] publ]c.
two areas ta!ke~ about tonight. - if the Commission looked et them 20 yeer~ he~ce
would know tk~t they cou~O not be strict[y tourist-or[ented.
Ch~'~mar STewer ~ decJare'd
~ ~t they ~re not trying to prevent the genere.~ pubi~c
from us eg ~he bbs oesses. As for t~ one location adjacent to tte ,'~ter~ate 805
Freewa~. ~e ree~s ~: "ho~d'~ ~h.ou~d be put or~ th~ location to give ~he ~o,_~ ST,
Mr. B~O~,~ felt the ordinance ~e~tr[cts a perso~ in th s zone from doing
w~t~,out f~r~ coming ~ for a b~Ja~g permit.
D~rector Warren commented that the provisions to which Mr. Brown refers would be
intended for staff evaluation and not the Commission. This has come about because of
~ome recent deve!opments, some of which have been questioned by the Council as to why
they were permitted. Th~s ordinance gives the staff a chance to review the site plans.
There wod]d be no attempt on the ~ rt of the Commission or staff, Mr. Warren added, to
re~tr!ct uses within th~s C-~ zone to the general public. The goal, however~ ~s to
create a good se~F-contalned tourist-commerclal center which will promote adjacent
deve;opment of this type. it has to be somewhat restrictive to prevent the encroach-
me~t o¢ a typ~ca! shopping center.
Member fo~k asked M,. Brown if he objected to the ordinance or' to the ordinance being
placed on his property° Mr. Brown said he objected to the ordinance - it was too
¢~st,lctive. it should be written in such a manner so a person would know in advance
what to expect. He further added that he felt the s!gn ordinance was too restrictive.
Mr. Brown further commented that ~t: is reaching a point in the City where a person
c~nnot do anything wi thout first coming in and asking for Commission approval. The
s!gn ord;nance w~l! prohibit the size of signs, height of signs, flashing signs, and
perhaps someday the coior of signs.
Mcmber ~orK remarked that theqew proposed ordinance wodld have many more zones which
wi!! ee more specific of th!ngs that wil! be al!owed ~n those zones. ~his pa~'tlcular
C-V zone ~as been lifted from t~at ordinance. He added that only the adoption of the
ordinance ;s belqg cons;dared ~on~g~t - not the applicatlon of it.
M~. Brown questioned why a se,v~ce station is subject to a conditional use permit in
this zone. Mr. Warren answered that: it was because of the problem of traffic and
site development and the number of service stat]ons that might go in this areao etc.
5e suggested that in view of the comments received tonight, that the Commission con-
sider continuing the matter once again and this would give the staff a chance to
review the text.
Mr. Ferrei~a qdest!oned what wouid happen to a development if someone put ]n just the
mo~el itse!F. Co,.!J the deve!ope~ tha~ put in a florist shop, vet c!in~c, etc.
Member York ~ta~ed th~ would probab!¥ be al! ri9ht for an area of a 9roup of motels.
~r. Ferre~ra ~e : t~e ordinance should leave the businessmen enough ~mmunity to do
tre~r ow~ free pianni~9; ~hat it was unfair to restrict this type of business strictly
to the C-~ zore. ~e added that he has over 5 acres of land and would l~ke to see
Membe~ ~or~ decta~ed ~t would be subject to his submlttln9 a master plan for the
~:~ea wh;ch would then oe approved by the Comm~sslon. He added it was d~fflcult to
~t~te de{i~itely wha~ van or ca,not be put ;nto Mr. Ferrelra~s property without first
coming ;n and hav~ng h~ property zoned. He reiterated that there will be public
~ear~ngs held before ~nv app!ication of the zone.
CV=~rman Stewart re{erred to the General Plan and the neighborhood shopping centers
0el~neated or, !~. ~e stated that Mr. Fer~e~ra~s request for one of these centers
would ~ave to fit into the pattern of the General Plan before it would be approved.
Alsg, a s~oppir!g center must be needed ~n the neighborhood before approval wou~d be
M~. Warren commented that in this pert~cula r area that: Mr. Ferrelra is talking about,
~t is conceivsb!e that some of these uses should be provided. Chairman Stewart commented
t~ Oecause ~t was zoned C-V~ ;t should not turn ~nto a neighborhood shopping center
to service the peop!e wlth~n one m~le of it.
MSIJC [¥ork~Gregson) Pub!~c hearing be conti~ued to the meeting of January 4~ 1967.
Action on E~tabiishment of Flood Plain Zoning ~n Lower Sweetwater Vat!el
Mr. ~arvey H!ber~ Attorney representing the Home Federal Sav~ngs and Loan Association
asked~f he coulP make e statement. Chairman Stewart stated the pubt~c hearing was
¢!osed. City Attorney Lindberg explained that Mr'. Fletcher from th~s Association~
co-tatted h~m and showed surprise at the !ast: public hearing for which he c!aimed he
d!d not ge~ a notice, due to the lack of communications of h~s fi~m. Me requested
we receive a statement From bls firm. Mr. Lindberg added that the Comm!sslon may do
~his without: reope~!ng the hearing.
Mr. ffiber then ~ead from a prepared statement ~n which the firm of Home Federal Sav~ngs
and Loan objec~ ~o the proposed flood plain zoning. He stated that 80 % of their
ciiemt's property ?n the Sweetwater Valley I~es within the f!ood plain zone. They
are concerned wi~h the market vaide of their properuy. Some of this property will be
condemned ~or h;ghway and Flood channel purposes. They paid a fair market va!ue for
~h~s and for industrlai purposes and the imposition of such a zone at this t~me would
be used against them if they try to resell ~t. They are aware of the Fact that this
~s no longer an emergency ordinance - that there is no time limit as such on ~t.
M¢. ~oer further s~ated that it appears to be a serious question o¢ const!tutioma ity
of the ordimance ~tself.
Chairman Stewart ciari~ied a statement made by Mr. Hiber that the zoning would affect
the value of their client s land. Mr. Stewart explained that it doesn't change the
zoning, only the ~mprovements hhat wi]] go on it, and they must go in in a manner
that ~,il] be reviewed by an agency of the City.
Mr. ~iber dect¢¢ed the zor~ng was too rest:r~ctive as to what the owners eou!d do ~o
f~ei~ !a~d.
£:ty A~orrley ~':dberg commented on the consritutlonality of the ordinance. ~e stated
it was a prope~ ~xer¢ise of ~he police power of the City to impose th~s zonfr~g ir
order to pro:eft the public welfare. The stimulus for enacting this zoning is the
Flood ¢onTro! Fh~melo The appl!cat:ion of this zoning is the study made by the
eng~neer~ o¢ ~h~ [oun~y and the C~t¥o Reimbursement funds would not be forthcoming
uniess F~o,~crio* +o~ adjacent owners was made iminent. The zoning is appl)ed to
protecf ~,e :~s o~ propcrty and l~fe and it is based on the extensive studies. Once
the flood channel is consEruct:ed, the zoning will be ]~fted.
'he Commi~:,3. ~ ~ui.s~a r~,~ ,,e~!ts o~ (hFs zon!ng, and Member york commented that the
more development that occurs in the Va!ley, the more aggravated the situation becomes
and they would be derelict in their duties not to apply this zone to the properties
in quEst~on.
C~airman Stewart mentioned that he called some loan companies and discussed loaning
money on the flood-plain zoned land. 'They asserted that the zoning itsel~ had
noth~r!g to do with lendi ng money on ~t; they would check the structure for ¢ompi!ance
to the ordinance.
RESOLd~iON NO. 435 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to
MSdC [Adams"fo~k~ £!~y Council the Adoption of Flood Plaim Zoning (r-i =md
~.-2~ of the Lower Sweetwater Valley
ill-
Findings be as
~'he area ]n question is subject to ~nundation during flooding cond~tlons.
b. The unrestricted development of the property within the proposed zones would
increase flood hazards and endanger the public health, safety and welfare. Such
deve!opme~t wod!d result Jn extensive damage not onJy to the properties within
the proposed zones but wou!d also result in potential damage to properties
presently outside the area in question.
c. Proper !and use restrictions will allow for reasonable and economic development
in a manner so as to prevent such danger' to welfare and property.
d. imposition of t.e F-,! zoning, the most restrictive zoning, on that area proposed
for the flood contro! channe! wi!l best serve the purpose of carrying flood
water in a manner least likely to disrupt the development of the area and is
consistent with the engineering findings presented at the public hearing.
Sa~d res~r~ct!o~s, in !~g~t of the flood hazard, do not impose an unreasor, able
burden upon the property development and are consistent with the basic ~tent
and purpose of t~e comprehers[ve ordinance establishing flood plain zoning
contro!s.
ro BE SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING - Permanent Zoning of the Elks Club Annexation to R-I*D
D~rector Warren reviewed the loc at!on and the proposed permanent zoning.
RESOLUTION NO. 436 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Stating Their
MSuC (Gdyer- Gregson) !ntent to Ca!'i a Public Hearing for Decembe~ 19, 1966
to Permanent Zone to R-liD the Elks-Telegraph Canyon
Annexation
Recommendation ~ Proposed Neig-borhood Park Site Adjacent to Palomar School
Director of Pia~iqg Warren noted the location of the proposed s~te as bain9 on the
e~s~ side of Pa!oma~ Sc~oo1¢ a!on9 the San Di¢9o Gas & Electric Company right-of-way
and ¢ontafnin9 32 9ares. This site was initiated by the Parks & Recreation Commission
and they have 9ivan their approval of ~, based on a 90-day option whereby some
~vestigat;on could be made as to whether some form of access across the school site
could be obtained a~d a!so, M~. Warren added, they should be assured that the
ddjacent r~9h~-o~"way of ~ke San Die9o Gas & Electric Company could be made availab!e
For pa~s~e park pb~pose-, rne staff would, therefore, recommend That [he Comm;ss~on
f;,-d th~ in ¢o~¢ Ym~nc~ w~tP ~he General Plan and recommend that the 90-day option
be pursued. Th~s would be at its greatest potential if used with the Gas Company
right-of-way.
Member Rice noted that the a~ea ~n question was over the crest of a hill and becomes
quite windy and co!d, Mr. Warren indicated that it does fall into a canyon somewhat
bdt is protected by the topo9raphy. Member R~ce remarked that he was questlonln9
the va!ua of such a park- iF it is windy and cold,
Chairman Stewart commented that parks are mainly used in the summertime and there
WOuld not likely be that type of weather then.
D!reczor Warren declared that the Parks ~ Recreation Commission recommended this
s~e and that it is well related to the school site.
City Attorney Lindberg discussed the recently approved resolutions in Los Angeles
permitting the use of right-of-way for recreational purposes°
Mr. Warren declared that the Commission's findings would be that ~t is in conformance
with the General Plan and that the Council consider this acqulsitlon~ We would need
some form of access to the park - perhaps ultimately by a !oop street.
MSUC (Adams-York) Recommend to the City Council that this site be acquired or that a
9n-day option be taken with the following suggestions:
1. That the City obtain some agreement from the School District that temporary access
can be gained across the school site°
2. That because of the sma!! size of the parcel involved, that some formal agreement
be reached with the San Diego Gas & Electric Company to assure that the adjacent
portion of the transm]ssion line right-of-way be availab]e for re!ated passive,
recreat[ona! uses°
Workshop
D~rector Warren noted that Mr. Corwin Mocfne will be down on December 12, and that
the workshop session will again begin at 3 pom. to 5 p°m. and reconvene at 7 p.m°
ADJOURNMENT'
MSUC (Rice-Adams) Meeting adjourn to the workshop meeting of December 12. Meeting
adjourned at 9:45 pomo
Respectfully submitted,