HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1966/07/06July 6, 1966 Smith, Joh~soa ~
Attorney Li ndbarg
APPROVAL 87
REZON ~ NG S
PUSL~C ~EAF, ~ ~;:
The app] ic~t~oa
to 5 feet.
of the
~ny questions.
PUBLIC ~EARING: ~b ra W~i~r, te - Ot:.y ;ake~ Road, North o~ Bonita Road - R-] to R-2
'he application wa re~d i; whlch ~ request wa~ mad6 to r6zo~e from R-~ to R-2
approx~m.~tely 3 ~c~6~ of p~oF~rty 'located ~ t of 0tay ~e, ke~ Road a~d approximately
600 fe6t ~outh of 5o['~ta Road.
O~rector of F~,~n~ng subm~tte~ ~ plot pJ=r ~ot~ ~g t~e loc:~o:' ~,~d adj~ce~t ~'~d
u:'e ~nd zoning, The property ~: p,r~:~e~tJy zoned F~",~20~ or 20~000 ::quire feet
of ~nd per dwe~i;[ng u~t. 'TP~ re~e:;t: for F-2, ~r duplex zon]ng, :a~d ~f approved,
could permit 7,000 ~u~re: ~:oot ~o~: u~der certain c:ond[t[;~:. D[recto~ WaiFFe~ then
noted the are~ on the Ged:er :: P~.r~ remarking t~at the P~.;~ proj~ct~ high-density
res~de~ti[~ for most of the re-id to thc :outF~ l'he :;outhwe;t corner of th~s ~7. ter~
sect~ofl ~s zoned C-~-D, ~d t~e proposed requast to R-2 lis for a tran~, t~on zone~
A~1 of the lot wt.; h;~ve frar. t*ge 2r -,¢ ed'.:eme~t:~ ~d u~less the ease~nt
ded[ctted, the ~)t~ c~n~ot be 5p]~t. "n~ :¢taFf would ,:ugge~t placing the
Th~s be~g fhe t~e a~d p~,ce afl advert ::ed, the pub~'c heaF~n9 wa-' opened~
Mr. Ross ~'bh,~t~, 3955 Otay L~,ke~ ~o~d, slated t~re: s s 60 foot drop fr~ the
res dent~el dwe~'¢~9s to these p~oposed iota. BecaLs6 of the college ~n the area,
there ~s a definite tfe'r'd tak~9 pi=ce ~ th~S ~::ter~ect[oe, which wa~. o~e reason
the 6ounc~ rezoned the opp,)s~te cor:-e~ to
Cha[rma~ pro t:em Stewart q~est!;;~6~ Mr. w~]~h~t6 co~cer~g h~$ ~nte~t to reduce
lot slzes. Mr. ~ii]h~te declared he hadn:t cons',dered that - [t w~s just necessary
to do so~th~n9 w~th this property other tf?; : ~9~6-'famTiy zoning; therefore, he
desires a c~prom~se w~[th ~upi~x zo':~'~g. Fie spoke o¢ o~e design he will be con-
structin9 which w~ Il be a 2500 ~quare foot ur~t - two stories - and have one
entrance showing. No o~e w~]t b~ able to tel'~ w~ether this ~s a single-family home
or a duplex~ Mr. ~',l~Le Cdded t~,et the (:~ts w~]~h;=ve two bedrooms o~]y, thus
keeping the f~m~Jy size ~o ~ m~n~mum~
Member Joh~so,q e'sked Mr. W~]~L~z.~- ~f he h~d any object~o~ [o the R-2-B*20 zoning.
Mr. W[Jl~te stated he d~dr:t k*ow w~ether he d~d or ~ot, ~t th~s t~me.
Mr. Robert Her;::cheJ, Pre~¢~dent of the Sweetw~zer Va'~ey g~v~c ACsoc[at]on, stated
he had bee~ ]-structed by the Board of ~]rectors to p~ac:e o~ record opposition to
the rezon[ng request, fha reasor for the oppos[t~o~ was the Va]~ey~s e~deavor to
maintain large ~ot s~zes for ~d~v~dual homes. Ch~]rr~ pro tern Stewart asked how
ma~y people ~ [~e V~al'ley expre%sed an op]r]o~ o~ th~s. Mr~ ~er. scheJ ~ndicated
approximately J5 %; th~s w~;, do~e at t~e[r ~u~ meeting he~d recently.
Dr. A. R. Gru~ke, ~505 Cal!i~:. Me:s~ta, stated his oppor,'[~o~ to t~e rezon~ng declaring
he nves~ed [~ adjace~t property w~r:k ~, o,~e.-h~if acre ~ot; there will be ao
abupda~ce of no~e' coming from these h.~m~.~ becadse r.o~se5 rise; too many
here wiJl detract fromthe v~ew of h~s property; does not wa~t to abut property
that ~s zoned down; the vagueness of the pre~entat~o*' - the owner does not have any
definite plans or how much ]-:~d me wilt be needing, etc. Pr. ,.,runke then requested
the petition be re~d.
f'he petition, s gr. ed by 16 property owners, was re~d.
Director Warre~ expJa~qed the r~so,n for ~ot F~v~g a~y eJevat~o~s or landscaping
p]ar~, since ir, a'¢y rezoo]og reqdest, eve thodgh ~ 8ppJ~c~qt may submit pJa~s,
would not be binding. However, ~f the Commlssion imposed the supplemental "O'~
zone on it, then th~ applicant wo~ld have to submit his plans to the Commission
for architectural and site plan c~]trol in thc future.
There being no further comment, e~ther for or against~ the heerin~ was declared closed.
Member Adams commented that the property was in a unique position, s~nce it was not
level ground. Generally, he added, he ~s in ~greement w~th the people in the Valley
in trying to retain one-half acre lots; however, it is difficult: and almost
impossible to adopt a rule l]ke this for every slngle lot in the Valley.
Member dohnson commented that the general Plan allows four units per acre which
this request would be, ~nd furthermore~ §t would serve as a transit[onal zone to
the commerc§al property.
Chairman pro-tam Stewart, discussing the pet]t[on~ spoke of the drainage proSlem
the residents I]v[ng [n the ~o~]ta ~el=Aire s~bdlvlslo~ are h~v]ng, fie suggested
the people get together wlth the City Englneer]ng Department and try to solve thJs
matter. As to the rezoning request~ he sa]d it didnOt appear to be out of line
because of the change in topography. The land below and to the north could go
R-3 (multiple=familY) or t~se owners could go to the County a~d request commercial
zoning. As far as good planning goes, ]t meets the precepts of going from
zoning to R-2 and R-3 or commercial. Mr. Stewart added that he felt it would be
more in keep]rig with the general concept of the lots ir! the Valley if ]t were
left to 20,000 square feet and the ,~Dn zone were attached.
MS~C (Adams-Johnson) Resolution of the City Plarming Commisslon Recommending
RESOLUTION NO. 407 to the City Council the Change of Zone for Property
at Otay Lakes Road, North of Bonita Road from R-1 to
Findings ara as follows:
1. The General Plan designates the area adjacent to th~s to the north as a
high-density) multlple=fam~y area. :'he Com'nlss~on found tha~ this change
of zone represents good zoning practice and that ~t w~ll be a transition
between this high=~ensity ares and the lower density ~rea to the south.
2.The large lot size requirement and the architectural a~d site plan control
will help to assure compatlbility with existlng uses in the area.
,PUBLIC HEARING: Shell O)1Co./F. Ferre)ra - South Side ~anlta Road, 300~ E~st
of Sandalwood Drive R=3~D to
The application was read in which a request was m~de for a ch~ge of zone from
R-3-D to C-I for property located on tge south slde of Bonita Road, 300~ east of
Sandalwood Drive; also, a request for reduction of front setback along Bonita
Road from 25 feet to 15 feet.
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan notlng the location and adjacent
land use. He explained that this w~s the property previously zoned and approved
for the convalescent facility. £ince this facility h~s now been approved for
relocatlon for that site at the corner of Sandalwaod ~nd ~on~ta ~oad, the
applicants must now apply for another zone change to move their service station
site. Hr. Warren then noted the Jocat]on of the proposed interstate 805 Freeway
to this proposed zone change. He indicated the area that is suggested for Tourist-
Commercial zoning on the GeneraJ Plan.
Chairman pro-rem SCewart noted the proposed frontage road and the two lots on
either side of this road that will be zoned commercial. He also suggested that
the Commission consider changing the zoning on the front of the parcel which will
contain the convahescent facility, so that the entire parcel will be zoned
Hember dohnson asked if the staff received any recent assurance from the D~v]s[on
of Highways that the alignment as proposed will be the final one.
Director Warren indicated that in all probability, this w~11 be the final alignment.
They propose to begin construction sometime between 1968 and 1970 and the Freeway
must be completed by 1972o
Thls being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Frank E. Ferreira, 3715 Putter Drive, Bonita, California, spoke of the Commission's
desire to interchange the sites for the convalescent home and the service station.
For this reason, they are now faced with the relocation of the service station
it will now be further away from the residential development and closer to the
Freeway. He said he talked to Hr. Shepard and Hr. Oekema of the Division of
Highways and that they made a verbal comment that they liked this particular
alignment of V]sta Drive - that partial acquisition of the Freeway right-of-way
w~ll begin in th]s fiscal year.
The Commission d]scussed the alignment of Vista Drive and concurred that the final
alignment would be subject to approval by the City Engineer and City Council.
Mr. Ray Powell, 4813 Bancroft Drive, La Mesa, representing the Shell Oil Company,
stated there is a need for the service statlon in the Valley. ~n this particular
proposed location and wlth their present arrangement, they feel it will serve the
community better and is much better plannin9. Mr. Fowell spoke of the need for
the reduction of setback alo~9 B~ita Road because of the ~8 foot parkway which
exists.
Mr. Robert Henschel, 3525 Lomacltas Lane, spoke in favor of the request declarin9
~t will be an asset for the Valley.
Mr. John Johnsen, 257 Eucalyptus Court, questioned what use would be permitted if
the applicant decides not to put ~n a service station. Chairman pro tem Stewart
remarked that any use listed under the particular zonin9 could 9o in. Director
Warren noted that under the new proposed Tourist-Commercial zoning, such uses as
motels, hotels, restaurants and the t~ke will be able to 9°
Mr. Johnsen stated he objects to the requested rezonin9 since the specific use cannot
be dictated.
There being no further comment, e~ther for or against, the hearln9 was declared closed.
The Commission d~scussed the proposed uses for the Tourist-Commercial zone.
Director Warren commented that the staff would recommend that th~s vlsitor-commercial
zoning ultimately be applied ~n accordance w~th the General Plan. This zone will be
-4-
more restrictive th=.n the presei~t C-2 zor]~cj a~;d I~es~z t!~ tre C=~ zone. City
Attorney L]ndDer9 st~ated t~t the C~ty recently ,~dopted ~k,e n~f C~k~ zone and
areas zoned C~ were spencer[ed for th~s r:~:w z~ne. Whe]~ t:he r:ew zon~n9 ordlr~nce
~s adopted, the C,.),'~s~o~ w~l~ then ~,~ve tc~ dec~d,e wt,~t ~re~ ~ ~he c~ty w~JJ
be de~igriated for the V~C zor, e; th]s w]~/ '~)t occur
as to rezor,~ng that prope~y o~ the west side of the proposed aror,,t:~:ge ro~d
back to R~3. Che~rmr=;r; pro t:e~ Saew~,rt 5tared he ~ide [:h;~ suggest~o~ for
Comm~ss]o~ co~;[derat~o-r sometime in the future. ~;¢ &:zked that the st~ff check
~nto this a~d ~t~te possible act;~on ~$ soorl 8:;
The staff asked t:h;~t zon~'qg o~ ~h~; e~ster'n port,on of the s~te be gra~ted ~n
accordance w~th the s~t:e boundaries for the s(rv[ce
MSCC (Johnson~','m~th) Reso~ut~om of the ;::try P1;:~,,g Comm~ss[oc Reco~end[n9
RESOLUTION ~*;0. 408 to the C~ty Cou~c[~ t~,e (;hange~ of Zone for the 5outh
S~d~* of 8or~ra Roc-:d, 300~ Eas'c of Sa~d~wo~d br~ve
from R-3~,D to C-]=C ~ ,,',cso;da~ce W'~th the :;toff
F~ndlngs are as
1. Subject property ~s located w~th~n ~'-: are~ the 6e;-,er;~l F~r,~ des~gr, ates as
Visitor-Commercial. T~Jis ~rea w~ll be, adjacent to the pfc;posed ~r. terch~ge
between Bonlt:~ Road a~d ~nte~st~te 805 Freeww.
2.The reduction of front se[back to 15 feet will ,~:lt~ more complete
tion of land necessary for commercial development.
CONO IT~ ONAZ USE
PUBLIC HEARI~: Shell O~ Compar:y/F'. Ferre~r8 ~ So~tF S~de 8a~ta Roed~ 300~
~ast of Sand~ood 9r~ve = Service Station ~n C-~ Zor~e
The applicatlom was read in which a req0;est wins mmda for permission to construct
a service statlon at the south s~de oF 50~Ta Road, 300~ east of Se:~dalwood
Drlve.
Director of P'lanr;in9 Warren submitted a plot plat: r:,s~tlr, g the loc~-~t:~on amd
commenting that th~s would be subject to Co~*~c~l approval of the rezon~g request.
Access to the service station site would be ~%'~ ~o~l~ta Road ~n~ the new proposed
frontage road. ~rector Warren ~ha~] submltted th~ dT~vsi~gs of t:h~ proposed
building noti~g that ~t w~tl be a ranch=style station. Si~ce the "~: zone
then reviewed the su=ff:s recomm~s-,~at~or::; of ~pprove/.
This being the t~me amd place ~s 4~dvert~sed, the public hea~r~r:g w~s opened.
Mr. Ray P~el'l, represent~n9 the Shell O~l ComFit. y, d~scussed zhe ext:erlor con-
struct~on of the proposed building com~ntlng that ~t will f~t: ~nto the archi-
tecture of the Valley. The bu~ld~ng w~ll be p~rt~;=~ly of Pales Verde stone and
w~ll have a s~mulated shake sh~n91e roof; thls same co~er~r,g w~ll be used over
=5¸=
the ~stamd pump~. : .:e ~amdsc:ap!r:9 w~J be done .according to the des!res of the
C~ty.
Mr. Frank E. Ferre~ra~ 37H5 F~tter :,';i~e~ discussed th, e s~ze cf ~he lot noting
t~e added fro'~tage. ~e ~pp~t~:r:t h~s "pull,ed bacK" h~s b~d~rg~ leaving
most of tSe front for ~=reuverab~[ty. l~e cor~struct]or of th~s station
cost $~5~000 t~ $20,000 over the r presemt standard
There be~g r~a f.rt~e~ commer}~, elther fo~ or ~ga~r:st:, the ~ear r9 was declared
c I os
T'~,e Corem s~? distressed the request a~d c~c~rred thet they were satisfied w~th
~t.
M$~C (Ad~ms~ o~,:~son) Req~e$~ for (ond'tior~i u~e permit ~or service star,or: be
~pproved s~bject t~ tV~e f~o~ng
1. Approve0 of th s request does rot const~t~te approval of a~y s~gns ~ tP~s
tlme~ $19~:s s~,~i ~e c},~s~dered by t~e Pi~T:~g {~'~ .... o.. ~ accordar~ce
w~th Sect~ors 33.54.3 ~':d 33~54.4 (.Dh zone regulations) of the zoning
ord ~
All ~ig~tir~9 sh~lt be de~gred to ~o~d projecting on res~de~ti~t zreas
in the v~c~n~ty.
3. A:i~ sa'~e$ s~i~ be l~m~ted to tFo~se r:orm~lly c~rs~dered
service s~t~on reeds~ ?d dTsptays of sush sales shall be c:onf~ced w~t:h,~n
the bu~Jdl~g or be~eat~ the ca~op~ed aress.
Pla~ti~g beds shal'l be expended ~ width where possible, ~d
mate,rials shell be perm~nemt~y ma~t~°nea to ~'ssure perpetual gr~th~ A
pleat r:g pl~,~ s =~l be ~pproved by the staff.
5. Ar~ enclosed ~rea for tras~ sk~ be provided.
6. T~e segment of she reai~gn~rt at V~ste Drlve be~wee~ Bo~ta goad a~d the
southerly property ~[~e, of the service station :shalJ be co~strc~cted
c[dent:aJ wit% the ~serv~ce st~t~o~ co~struct[oE~
Further, f~d[r]gs be as
1. That [he gre'~t~:~9 of the cor:d~t~o~al use permit will not be materially
detrimental to t~,,e public he~:JtF,, safety~ or welfare. The factors
de;]r~essed ~ thez~, g ord~es~ce w~ ~ not be s[g~flca~tJy present
any objec ~ o~,~b~e
2. The characteristics of the use proposed are reasonably compatible with the
types of use permltted ~n the; surrounding areas. Th~s proposed development
~s wlth]n ~n area projected fo,* tourist~commerc[al use on the General Pla~,
one use of which ~:s a ser~ce
d~der the d~scuss~on perlod, the Commission considered t~e proposed fro~t.a9e
road. Mr. W~rre.- stated he spoke to the app~cset ~bout
assumed that the ~ntersect_~on of the ro,~d w~:!'t be a~ delineated on the plot
Chairman pro tam Stewart felt ~t would be, appropriate ~o h~ this as one of t~e
~nd~tions. Member Adam~ agreed, rot~r:g the s~te ~d?c~nt Lo the proposed
property shou]d be improved, but he quest~o¢~ed whether ]t wou~d be proper' to
require the [mproveme~t on the en:[re road sooth of th~s fJte. Mr. Ferre]ra
stated he would ~[ke to g;ve the E*,g~r:eer[ng ;;epart~er:t the ~l~o~fnce of
changing the al]g~,ment of t~,~:; road, [f they t~ke. C]ty Att¢~:¢ey
stated the prime co~cer,~ r.o~ w t:~e r;=d ad~ce~t to the property; it could
be that: the road could be altered beVor;d t:h]s ~]te. Member Ad,ms felt the
co~d~t[o~ should o~y apply to thct p;¢opert:y ~djo~]ng the service st~t[o~
the a~g~ment b~ck to the C~[:y ];~:*:e. ;~rect'~r W~rrer de¢~ared t~t eventually
the Comm[ssJo~ w~[~ k~ve to ;~.ct upon': the. a~]9'~me*:t of the street ~n itc entirety.
PdBLIC EEAR~NO: ;i:~io~ 5~I Compar~y- 20~ Ti'drd A~er~ue ~ Reco~structlon of ~erv[ce 3t:~t~o~ ~:~ C-I Zone
The appllcat:~o~ was read ~ ~h~ch a req~es~ was m~:de to r'eco~struct the service
station ~t 201 Third
Director of Plarm~g Wcrre~ submitted 8 plo( pla~ rot~g th8 location and
adjacent 18;:d uses. fie stated that a new bu~/d~n9 wil~ be co~stru;ted along
with new pump islands. Ke the~ ooted the location of the proposed s]9r:s for
the service station, a~d cornm, e~ted that there are ~o s~ze restr~c[io~s as to
sig~s for th~s locatio;% Mr. Warre~ the~ reviewed the staff"s recommendations
for approval. He remarked that he discussed the landscapin9 plan w~th the
applicant and suggested a possible resh]ft[n9 of the building in order to get ~n
more landscaping.
Member Joh~so~ questioned whether th~¢re wou]d be a fence o~ the south side of
the property. Birector Warren remarked that there is a~ existing wall there
now; there is also a fence ru~*;i~9 Lhe Je~gth of the entire alJey on the east
side. He added that the access to th~s a~ey should perhaps be the subject of
Englneer]~g Oepartme~t Approval. The servica stat]or: to the east of th[s site
has access to this alley.
This being the time a~d pl~;e as ~dvertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Raymond, represe~t:[~g ~he ~]o~ Oil Company, conf~rmed that he had discussed
the landscaping pla~ w~th t~e ~rec:tor of P~3:~9 ar:d ~t was fairly well
established for ~ll the areas except that front~:g or: "E" Street. ]he pla~ as
proposed he felt would m~ke it dlff~cult for the customers to get [n a~d out of
this access.
The Commiss[oz d~sc~ssed the s~g~s proposed, b~rect:or Warre~ ~oted the co~dit~o~
previously imposed o~ other ~e~rv~ce
rotating. Mr. Raymond declared their pr'opo~;ed free~st:¢~d[r!g sig~, will revolve
and be i~ter~alty l]9h~edo Mr. Warre~ commented that as far as the staff
concerned, they are ~ot in agreement o~ that eYe~ tho::gh the s~g~ proposed is not
a typical rotating
A letter from the Dow~tow~ Association f~vori~g the co~dlt~o~al use permit was ~oted.
Member Adams remarked t~,at the proposed s]9~ ~s a rotating o~e arm in view of the
fact that the Commiss]o~ na:s refused rot:a[i~g sig~s o~ any number' of service
stations in the past~ he could not see how they coald approve th~s uae.
Mr. Raymond roted the slgn wouid be 25 feet nigh.
Member goh~son sa~d he agreed a~out the oppos;t~oa to the rotating s~gn, and
added he wouid like to see the landsc~p~ag as proposed by the staff, ~f possible.
MSUC (Smlth-Jo,msoa} Request Fo:r reconsts'uctiion of service stat~o;~ be recom-
mended for approval, subject to the fofiiowi~g co~ditioas;
]o All sales s~il be I~miced to t~ose ~osmatty considered iaclde~al to service
statior~ needs ~r~d displ~;¥s oF s~c:h items sh~l~ be confined w~thin the building
or beneath the canopied
2o l'he locat:io~ of ~,~¢ csrb c~t$ shall be s2b~ect to approval by the C~ty E~g~neer.
Signs shall be restricted to those shown o~ the photo submitted wlth the
application a~d o~e typ;c~l p~r~ce tigon
4. A~ attempt should be ,~de to alter t~e slte plan in ~ manner that w~tl allow
for some iandcaped areas.
5. Spaces for off-street parklng s*,~i; be delineated no a plot plan before
Further, flndlngs ~e as
t. ?hat the granti~g of the cor~dlt~o~al use permit will not be mater~ally
detrimental ~:o the pobt~c b,~alt~, safety, or' welfare. The factors dellneated
in the zo~O;~g ordi ;ance wit'l not be signlflca~sly present to an objectlonable
degree. Because of the site locatio~n¢ traffic flow should be Facilitated.
2. The characteristics of t~ ~se proposad are reasonably compatible with the
types of use permitted in the surroundlng areas. There ~s an exlstlng
statio~ o- t~e s~te which w~I! be replaced ¢~d there ~s another service
statio~ o~ an opposite corner.
VARIANCES
PUBLIC hEAR~G~ Methodlst Church ~, 500 E:. Naples Street - Request For ~se of
Trailers as Temporary Build,nBs
O~rector of Pte~nr~ng Welrrer~ stated he recelved a ve~ball request from the applicant
to cor~inue thi~s hearixg c-~tli she meeting of August I, l'h~s came about as a
result of the letter they received from the Fire Marshal indlcati~g that their
proposed use of trailers would be ag~nst the regulations of the State F!re
Marshal's Rules gover~i~g public assembly occupancies.
Rev. Robert ~i. Graham, ~i~istar of tie bayv~ew Orthodox Presbyterian Church
~mmed~ately to the west of twit s~te~ objected to the postponeme~nt stating he
has been waitir;g for I½ hoots to comment on the ~equest only to be ~nformed at th~s
t~me that the hearlng w~il be continued. He felt he should have recelved a
not,ce about the continuance of th~s
D]rector Warrec; explained t:het the Church d~d r~ot check w~th tbe Filre Marsha]
f~rst a~.d submitted their appl~catior~. After t~,e st:aff ?~otified the F~re Marshal
of their ir~te.~t, he sent them a letter exptair~i~ )t w.~s agair;st regu)at[ons to
use these tra~Jer's for public meet:~ngs. The ~pp~cant c:~e ~r~to the Plan~g
off]ce t~ay a~d asked to have the co;~t[~ar~ce so that he co, id work this matter
out with the Fire
MSU6 (Joh~sor~=Ad~ms) fleering be cor:t[:~ued u~t~] the meting of August i, 1966.
Rev. Robert Craham ~t~ted
prepared stateme,~t re~at~r.g to certa]~ facts of his property a~d t.h~:t of the
adjacent church site. ~e asked uhat this be ~ubm~tted for the record.
PUBLIC ~EAR]~'~: ~re~ter £o~hwestern Corporatio:~ ¢ 333 Fourth Ave~e - Request
for Temporary Oversized i~91~ ~ R~3 Zone
The applicat~o~ ~as read ~ which a req~!est w~s m~de for permisslo~ to erect a
180 square foot s~g~ d~sp~ayi~g a sketch of th, e Tw~ ~o~'ers project along w~th
descriptive ~format~o~ o~ the proposed eo~trcft~o~ and facilit~e:~ that
be provided at 333 Fourth AYenue.
O~rector of Pla~i~g Warre~ s~bm~tted a plot pt¢~ ~o~g the Iocatio~ of the
proposed s~gn. The present ordinance restricts s~g~$ to 32 square feet ~n
total area; the applicant i~ ~k~ng permiss~o~ to erect o~e measurin§ 10" x
The staff recommends approval of the reques~ with a few conditions which
Mr. Warrei~ proceeded to review.
~.~ This being the time a~d p~ace as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Framk E. Ferre~ra, 37~5 Putter ~'~¥e, ~o~ita0 o~:e of the develop6rs of the
project, spoke of the ma~y delays ~ th~s project ~d commented that if they could
have begu~ co~¢truotion a few mo~ths ago, they wou~d have been able to get more
ample f~a~c~g; however, w~th the m~y de~ays ~curred, they ~ow ~eed to rely
hea¥i~y o~ advertising, etc., bec:~use of the magnitude of the project.
Member Joh~sor! ~oted that the request ~s for a o~e~year per~od ~d questioned
whether th~s was e~ough t~me a~l~wed, l~r. Ferre~ra s~id he hoped ~t would be,
a~d that he wo~ld not have to co~e im ~d ask for 8~ e×te~sio~.
There being ~o further comment, e~tbe¢ for or against, the he&ring was declared
closed.
Member Joh~o~ felt the C~mm~s~o~ should see a preliminary sketch of the s~gn.
Mr. Ferre~ra stated the s~g~ wo~d be 60 % p~ctorial a~d 40 % le~ter'~g. Oirector
Warre~ said he discussed th~s with the applicant:0 a:~d ~t was felt that the s~ze
of the sign was the primary th~g here.
Member Adams commented that he d~d ~ot i~te~d to oppose the sig~ but cautioned
the Commissio~ tha~ other request:~ for s~m~r s~gns w~li be coming in for other
developments throughout the 6it~. Cha~rm~ pro tam Stewart remarked that the
6ommiss~o~ has gr~ted s~g~s of this ~ature to subdlv~s~o~:s. Member Adams declared
that subdivisions are 8~owed a sign 8rea up to 150 square feet, arid that there
a need for a slg~ of this $~ze for many shopping centers. Chairman pro tam
Stewart felt the C~ty should support the effort of these developers and to assist
them in the aspect of their development.
City Attorney L~ndberg stated that no gr~ting of a variance of thls type should
be interpreted as a precedent and the Commission should know that each one is
considered on its own merits.
MSUC (Smith-,loP,son) Approval of variance for slgn (lO~ x 18:) subject to the
following conditions:
1. T%at the one-year time limit be invoked with the understanding that the slgn
will be well-maintained u~tit removed.
2. That the sign be replaced with one conforming in size to ordinance require-
meats, should the building be completed and any portion occupied.
3. That the sign be located beck oF all setback tlnes. The maximum height to
the top of said sign shall be 20 feet.
F~nd~ngs be as follows:
There are practical d~fferences and unnecessary hardshlps within the meaning
of Ordinance No. 398 es ~mended which would result in the strict compliance
of the provisions of sa~d ordinance. So stated as delineated below.
2. There are exceptional circumstances end conditions applicable to the property
herein involved or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to
property or class of uses In the s~me zone. The site is unusually located
with little development located ad~acen~ to it. The property is vacant and
the sign will be temporary until construction is complete. Th~s size is
required to properly §ltustrate a sketch of the b~ildings.
~. Granting th!s varlance ~s necessary for the preservst~on of ~he substantial
property right of the applicant. ~ecause of the scale of the project, it
is necessary to advertise In every possible manner to obtain pre=leasing
commitments, ~ithout thls w~r~acce~ the s~gn would ~ot be effective in
promoting this project.
~. Gra~t]ng this variance w~ll not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injur~ous to the property Improvements in the zone or district
in which s~id property Is l~csted. The sign will be temporary and no
larger tha~ signs all~ed ~n the commercial zone to the north and east.
P~BLiC HEARIN6i: Bale K)ncade - 203 E. Onieda Street - Reduction )n Front Setback from lO~ to 6~ for Fence
The appl~cetlo~ was reed ~n w~ch a request was made for a reduction )n front
yard setback from )0 feet to 6 feet fo~ the purpose of construct)rig a fence.
Olrector of Plann)ng Warren sub~ltted a plot plan noting the location of the
proposed fence. The applicant plans to erect the fence along the top of
slope which does not follow the setback. If the fence ls constructed along the
property l)~e, )t would leave a small area that would be difficult to maintain.
This be)rig the time and place as edvert)sed, the public hearing was opened.
-10-
Mr. Dale Kincaid, the app'l~cent, discussed the reasons for his request -- from
his back door to the slope is ~ feet. Twlce, in the past~ his young son has
fallen down the slope onto the street~ thus, hls need for the 6 foot high fence
is eminent,
Chairman pro tam Stewart mentioned the eros~o~ on the bank~ Mr. N~nc~id stated
he will be puttlng i!~ more plant material ~nd will ma~t~n the slope. He h~s
been overse~s i~ the past, but: will be st:atloned here for the next 3½ y~ars
therefore, will be able to take care of th~ landscaping. The fen¢;e will be of
redwood construction.
There being r~o f~ri:her c~nm~nt, e~ther for or aga~nst~ the hearing 'w~!s declared
closed.
Member Johnson declared there were some exceptional circumstances regarding the
slope. He felt ~he Commissio~ should insist o~ re-planting the slope and have
some assurance thmt this wi!l be ma~ntai[~ed. ~e questiomed what would happen
]f the property e~er cha~ged hands, g~rector Warren stated the varlance will
always be effectlve and tht COlr!dlt]or~$ cor~tinui~g.
MSUC (Johnaom-Sm~t~) Approval of variance request subject to the follow[ng con-
dition:
l. The slope between the fehce a~d Mo~serate AYemue shal~ be re-graded and
planted ]na mar~ne[ acceptable to the Plann]ng staff. S~ch slope and
plantings shall be permanently maintalr~ed.
Findings be as follows:
1. There are practical differences a~d unnecessary hardships within the meaning
of the Ordinance ~o. ]98 as amended which would result in the strict com-
pliance of the provisions of said ordinance. So stated as delineated in
the ordinance.
2. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to the property
herein involved or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to
property or class of uses in the same zone. The wall will be Iocased at
the top of the slope which ls the most loglcal location for proper main-
terence. Side door opens o~to setback area resulting in need to extend
fence into are~ for access to rear y~rd and ~dequate privacy.
]. The gra~tJng of such variance ~s ~etessary For toe preservation of the
substantial property rOght of the ~ppllcant . Unless variance ls granted,
aide door would have to be ~lte~'ed and slope area and top of b~nk would be
hard to maintaln outslde of fenced area; applicant wa, old be depr~ved of full
use of property.
b. Granting this variance w011 not 0e meter~atly detrimental to the public
welfare or [njurOous so the property improvements in the zone or d~strict
in which said property ~s located. There w~ld not be an obstruction at
the intersection and the ex]stlng property Js already 7~ to D" above the
sidewalk.
P~BL~C HeARiNg: Co Co Alley - 261Kearne¥ Street - Request for Reduction in
~ouse Size and Setbacks - Construction of Carport
~nstead of ~arage
The application was read in which a request was made for permis$1on to build on
a lot of record containing only 2,750 square feet with a lot frontage of 46.75
feet instead of the 50 feet required by ordinance; also certaln reductions in
setback and lot coverage are requested; and permission to build a two-bedroom
home containing 828 square feet and a two-car carport.
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location and
adjacent land use. He reviewed the applicant's requests and sald most of them
were justlf)ed because of the small lot size. The staff did have a question
about the carport i~ the rear becoming a converted patio instead. T~e staff,
therefore, would suggest that the carport be built on the side of the house
instead. Mr. Warre~ then reviewed th~ conditions the staff would ask be imposed.
This being t~e time a~d place ~s advertised, the public hearl~g was opened.
Mr. C. C. At!ey~ the applicant, stated he was present to answer any questions.
He said he agree,J wit~ t~e Director of Planning as to co~structlng t~e carport
on the side of the house instead of the rear~
The Commisslon dlscussed t~e small lot. Cirector Warren stated it was a lot of
record; there was a dwelling on it but t~is has been re)~oved. ~t is now vacant
and the lot cannot be easily used unless the applicant is granted a wriance.
He added that the staff received a call from a Mr. Herbert Schlage) who )s
taking care of the home of Mr. Lewis Miller adjacent to this proposed con=
struction. Mr. Schlage) felt the hearing s~c, uld be continued so that Mr. Miller,
who is presently out of town, w~ll be able to a~tend and voice his comments.
Mr. Alley declared the plar:s were shown to Mr. Miller and that Mr. Miller had
no objection to them.
Mr. Frank E. Ferreira= 3715 P~tter ~rive, questioned whether or not the City
Code automatically allows a 3~ foot side yard. D~rector Warren noted this was
permitted in subdivisions only where se~eral lots were involved.
Member Johnson remarked that there will be a precedent for th~s sort of request,
He asked how they could reconc)te this request with the zoning requ)rements;
the carport will be practically on the property line. He also questioned whether
a fence is proposed between the two properties.
Director Warren indicated there may be other lots )n the City where this might
h~ppen, but it wo~ld be unusual.
Chairman pro tam Stewart commented that in his experience on the Commission, there
were about 10 cases where in 1910-1915, s~bstandard lots were created,
Mr. Alley stated he was building this house for his brotherI~n-law who plays
golf ~nd doesn't wish to have ~ny yard to maintzino Mr. Alley originally
purchased the tot ~n order to protect his own property on the corner.
Member Johnson asked wh~t would prevent future lot splits such as th~s one.
C]ty Attorney L[~dberg explained that they were talking of a lot of record that
was already created.
Member Adams com~nted that the Commission h~s no control over precedents;
everything they do might eventually become a precedent,
MS~C (Adams=Johnson) Approval of v~r~ance sub~ect to the follow~ng conditions:
1. Final plans be approved by the Planning staff which ple~s shall be compatible
in design with the surrounding ~rea.
2. A carport be constructed l0~ wide by 200 long wlth an enclosed storage area
at the rear of the ce~port. Such storage area shall contain a m:n~mum of
120 c~bic feet with the mlnimum depth of 3" and m~nlmum heighs of 4~; car:
port to be constructed on the east s~de of the house.
3. Permission is granted to construct a 200 square foot covered patio on the
rear of the main dwelling in c~nformamce with the plot plan submitted.
This wilt allow a tots~l lot coverage of 45 %.
F~nd~ngs be as follows:
1. ?here are practical dlfferences and unnecessary hardships within the meaning
of 0rdinance No. 398 as amended which would result in the strict compliance
of the provisions of said ordlnance. So stated as delineated below.
2. ?here are exceptlonal circumstances and conditions applicable to the
property herein involved or the :ntended use thereof that do not apply
generally to property or class ~f uses ~n the same zone. The lot is a
legal lot of reco~d and because of the unusual slze (2750 square feet)
a variance is needed for adequate constructlon. The dwelllng is being
constructed for one person with one car and an enclosed garage would be
difficult to construct and would deprive o~vner of sufficient l~ght and air
on such a small lot.
3. Granting this variance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial
property right of the applicant. U~less the variances are granted, the
property would have to remain vacamt as it would be impossible to build
upon. Several house:~ through the older part of the C~ty exist on such
small lots without gsr~ges~
4. Granting this variance w~ll not be mater~ally detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property improvememts in the zone or distr~ct
~n which said property ~s located. A smaller, less attractive house occupied
this same site for a number of years. The contemplated construction will
compare w~th other homes in the central area.
PUBLIC HEARING (Cont~d) Proposed Amemdment to Garage Requirement ~n R-1 Zone
Director of Plsnnlng Warren stated this matter was continued from the last
meeting in the hopes of having a full Commissio~ present. Since this matter
has been controversial, ~t was comtimued so that a more representative vote of
the Commission could be available.
The Commission discussed the number of Commissioners absent from the meeting and
concurred that the matter should again be continued.
MSC (Adams-Smith) Hearing be continued until the meeting of July 18, 1966.
The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Members Adams, Smith and Stewart
NOES: Member Johnson
ABSENT: Members Vaden and G~yer
Report of Findings - Appeal of J. & D. F~aknik to a Condition of Variance -
667 Third Avenue
girector of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location. The variance
request was approved at the previous meeting subject to certain conditions, one of
which was tha requirement for a l0 foot front setback. This condition was imposed
so that it would be in conformance with the proposed C-O zone. The setback along
this block is now 5 feet, and since the )sst meeting, the applicants have felt that
they would like to observe this setback, and so are appealing this condition.
Mr. Warren added that )f it )s the desire of the Commission, upon hearing the
appeal, certain items could be reconsidered and the Commission could change this
instead of sending it to the
The report of findings was then read.
Clrector Warren indicated that as far as the C-O zone )s concerned, the Commission
was in agreement that t~e lO foot setback should be applied to this area. The ~'~
staff feels certain that the C-O zone will be app)led tn th~s area because of the
commercial uses that have already gone in. ~n all probability, th~s new zone will
be applied this year and will require a l0 foot setback for new construction.
Member Adams felt the Commission should not change this condition s~nce they have
good reason for imposing it.
MSUC (Johnson-Adams) Findings be approved and forwarded to City
Recommendation on Proposed 'aCTM Street Annexation
Director of Planning Warren stated thls property has been before the Commission at
the time of prezoning, it has been approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission
and the staff recommends approval to the City Council.
Chairman pro tam Stewart questioned whether the adjacent street (Third Avenue North)
was dedicated. Mr. Warren said it was, however, not improved. The developers will
be ignoring this street and not bul)ding upon it because of the change of topography.
MS~C (Adams-Johnson) Recommend to the City Council the approval of the proposed
"C" Street Annexation.
-lb,-
Resignation of Virgil D. Steve~so~
Chairman pro tem Stewart commented ~pon the resignation of V~rg~l Stevenson stating
that he calJed h~m to see ~f he would change h~s m~nd and stay on the Commission;
however, Mr. Stevenson wouldn't reconsider.
City Attorney t~ndberg commented that Mr. Stevenson's resignation was accepted by
the Council at their July 5 meeting.
Director Warren stated a re$olutio~ w~ll be prepared and presented at the next
meeting commending Mr. Stevenson on his service while on the Commission.
Chairman pro tem Stewart asked whether any member knew of any potential candidates
that would be w~lling to serve o~ the Commission. He asked that names be submitted
to the staff.
Electio~ of Chairman and 7~ce'-Cha~rman 1966-67
Director of Planning Warren ~ugge~ted th~s matter be continued until the next
meeting in view of the sm~ll number of Comm~ss~oner"s present.
Member Johnson agreed, but commented that now that summer has come, it may be
difflcult to have a full Commission at every meeting because of vacations, etc.
Chairman pro tam Stewart urged at1 members to be present whenever possible. He stated
that this was the second most important body ~n the City and ~n some matters, it
requires four votes of the £omm~ss~on to get a request approved or disapproved.
MS~C (AdamsiJohnson) Matter be cont~ed until the meeting of ~u/y 18, 1966.
Mr. Frank E. Ferre~ra, 37]5 Putter ~rJve, Bo~ta, asked about the poss~billty of
increasing the Comm~sslon to n~ne members.
City Attorney t~ndberg stated that seven were specified ~n the Charter; however,
this could be ~ncreased to n~e or decreased to f~ve by ordinance.
Chairman pro tem Stewart requested that th~s suggestion be put on the agenda for the
next workshop meeting.
Extension of Time - Holiday Estates Subdivision
Director of Planning Warreo stated th~s tentative map expires on July 6 and that they
are requesting another one-year extens~om. The request w~s received before ,July and
the staff would recommend th~s be granted.
MSUC (SmithiJohnson) Recommend approval of one year extension of tentative map; such
extension to expire on July 6, 1967.
League of California Cities Meeting
D~rector of Planning Warren ~oted that the next d~nner meeting w~ll be held on Friday,
Suly 15, 1966. Frank Van C~ea~e from ~0~ NEWS w~l~ narrate an interesting f~lm
covering his visit to Southeast Asia. Mr. Warren added that the secretary w~ll call
the Commission for their reservations.
ADJOURNMENT
MSUC (Johnson-Adams) Meeting be adjourned until July 18, 1966. Meeting adjourned
at 9:45 p.m.~
Re~spectfu] ly subml tted,
Jennie M. Fulasz
Secretary