HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1965/10/18 ORIGINAL
M Nd ES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEEIING OF
CiTY PlANNiNG COMM SS:ON OF CHUZA VISTA, CAL!FORN!A
October 18, 1965
The regular adjourned meeting of the City Pler:n]ng Commission of Chela Vista was he]d
on the above date at 7 P~M~, in the Counci] Chamber et the Civic Center wit? the
following members present:: Stevenson, Stewart, Smilth, Vaden, Adams .and Guyer.
Absent~ Member Johnson~ Also present: Directo~ of Planning Warren, AssisTant Pi: ....
Terre~, [~ty Attorney ~ ndbe g and Principal Engineer Har&hman~
STA~EMEN~
!he Secret~ry of the Commission hereby states that ~he d~d post w!t:h~n 24 hours of
adjournment, as provided by law, the order of the Commission for the adjourned meeting
of Octobe'~ 4, !965~
APPRO~vAL OF M~N~TES
MSdC (Adams-¥aden} M~n~tes of October 4, t965, be approved a~ ma~led~
Member Smith w~ welcomed and ~ntroduced to the Commi~s~ono
REZONiNGS
PUBLi[ ~EARING~ Proposed Rezoning to C-2 and R-3 Property Now Zoned R-I Between and "L'~ Street~ East of Broadway
"K" and "L" Streets, East of Broadway
D~rector of Planning Warren reviewed the si~oat~on whereby an eppiication was f~rst
received to rezone to C-2 that p':operty front!ng on 825 6roadway to a commercial
depth of 620 feet~ l'he CommissJ~n, at the time of this public hearing, concurred
that the request should be tabled arid directed the staff to study the ant,re block
for pogs~ible recommendation of rezor~in, g~ The staff, at the last hearing, presented
four alternate plans for rezon~ng the block~ or:e of which was advertised for nearing
ton~ght~
Mro Warren then discussed and expJ~ained each pith, noting that there was a smaJ]
parce! fronting on "K" Street whfch was proposed for C-2 zonJngo The ~taff feJt that
since this did not belong to the adjmcent C-2 owner~ that perhaps this parceJ should
be rezoned to R-3o Mr~ Warren then ~oted the are~ the staff would recommend be
zoned R-3 end ~uggested the Commission piece a density control on this, if approved.
This beiing the time and piece a~ advertised, tne public hearing was opened°
Mr~ CiVet Mathews, realtor, representing the or!gila1 appJicant, Mr~ Reneau, stated
tha~ the ismall parcel of la~d Mr~ Warren spoke of ]00~ x 180' ]s av.ei,,able to
Mr~ Re,eau at any C~me he cares to le~se
Mr. James Richards, 868 Beech Avenue, stated he was speaking for the opposition and
submitted a petition s~gned by lin residents who objected to this proposed rezon~ng.
Their reasons were: (1) w~th the R-3 and C-2 zom~ng~ proposed, their home val~es
would decrease from $4000 to $8000 per dwelJing~ (2) when they purchased thelr home~
here, they were a~sured the vacant iand would remain R=J and give them some protectio%
(3) this rezor~,[ng wouid be an ]ntrusion into thei'r residential area~
Chairman Stevenson asked which of the four staff pla~s would be acceptable to the
res~dentso Mr. Richards felt that an RI2 zoning would hold no objections.
Mr. Joseph Barabera, 542 "K" Street, stated his object~ons: (1) the loud speaker
system used by the South ~ay Chevrolet ~s qu~te annoying a~d can be heard for a Few
blocks; (2) "K" Street is the '~trial" street and race track used to test the cars
coming out oF the;r shop; (3) other vacant lots in the area wou~d ~n all p~obab~l~ty
go to R-3 zoning also; (4) "K" Street i~ the only street that has commercial zoning
beyond East Park Lane°
Mr~ Adams, 546 "K" Street, spoke in opposition, stating he objects to having R-3
zoning abutting h~s property,
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed,
Member Vaden stated he favors Plan "C'~ of the staff"s recomme~dat~or~, which delineates
C-2 zoning for a depth of 370 feet and R-3 for the remainder of the block~ Mr~ Vaden
felt this would be a good buffer between the commercia] and the residential, and
planning-wise, would be more preferable0 Member Adams agreed adding there w~uid be
all kinds of problems ~f they adopted the plan calli~g for heavy commercial to abut
the residential property. He declared he does not agree with the residents in the
area that are opposing the R-3 zoning, since he felt th~s was the most iogica! place
for iL
RESOLUTION NO. 379 Resolution of the C~ty Planning Commission Recommending
(MSUC Vaden-S;tewart) to C~ty Council Re~on[ng for Property at the fo!lowing
locations:
(1) South s~de of "K'~ Street, ~90 feet east of Broadway
extending 180 feet east for a depth of lO0 feet from
to C-2 and changing ex~sting zero, 5'feet and ~5 feet
setbacks_.to !O'feet~
(2) North s~de of Sierra Way, i25 feet east of Broadway
extending e~st 245 feet for a depth of 32 feet from
to C-2 and ~hanging setback~ a~ong the entire north side
of Sierra Way from 0 feet and 25 feet to 40 feet;
(3) 370 feet east of Broadway between "K" Street
Sierra Way from R-1 to R-3 and Changing setbacks from
25 feet to 15 {eet o~ ';K" Street and from 25 feet to
40 feet on S~erra Way.
The f]ndlngs of fact in support of sa~d determination are as follows:
1. it represert$ a, loglcal expansion o~ commercial zoning to give adequate depth for
expansion and park~ngo in addlt~on, the R-3 w~l~ provide a buffe¥ zone between
the C-2 and R-lo
2o The rezon~ng will allow property to deveiop which would normally remain vacd~t
due to narrow frontage without adequate depth.
Chairman Stevenson brought up the question of imposing the "O'l zone° Ci~y Attorney
Li~dberg stated it cannot now be attached to the recommendation since the motion
already passed; ~t was not discussed and the applicants did not have a charge to
comment on it, but perhaps the City Council w~tl make this stipulation.
Member Vaden suggested the Commlsslo~ recommend to the City Council that the "D"
zone be attached to the proposed R-3 and C-2 zones. Member Adams remarked that he
couldn't see why they couldn"t just attach this supplemental zone to the motJOno
City Attorney Lindberg stated if th~s '~D" zone recommendation is to be made, it
should go to the Council strictly as a recommendation and not part of the motion,
Director of Pian¢ing Warren declared the staff will incorporate this recommendation
Jn a letter to the Council.
MSUC (Vaden-Stewart) Recommend to the City Council that the supplemental "D'~ zone
be considered for' the R-3 and C-2 proposed rezonJngs, and shat some consideration
be given to placing a density restr[ctio~ on the R-3 property to require a lower
density of development.
POBLJC HEARING: Permanent Zoninq of Certain Properties in Southeast Portion of City
interim R-I and RI3 ~o Permanent R-; and R-3
D~rector of: Pianning Warren submitted a pint plan delineating the areas for permanent
zoning° He explained that the adjacent area fronting on Third Avenue in the COunty
is zoned C-2, but represents strip zoning of which the General Plan seeks to eliminate.
The staff would also recommend the establishment of 25 foot setback on Third, Quintard,
and Second Avenues. The second proposal involves the East Paiomar Street Amcexa~ion,
incorporating approximately 23 acres. This land presently 1les vacant and although
tentative maps have been filed, no flnal map has been recorded for it. On the
tentative map, the developer has set aside approximately 6 acres of land for a
- neighborhood shoppieg center, but inasmuch as thls map is no longer valid, the staff
would recommend that permanent R-I zoning be approved for this area, and at the time
that the developer f:~]es a revi~ed tentative map, the Commission can zone an area
for a shopping center,
Mr. Paul M~l~er, realtor, stated he was speaking informally for Mr. Albert Small,
who he felt would want to protest the R-3 zoning on the Third Avenue frontage. The
parcel [s now C-2, and Mr~ Miller ~ta~ed, the Comm]ss~o~ would be taking something
away from the owner.
Mr. Warren commented that this property is now interim R-3 as ~t was brought in from
the County; Jn the County, i~ was zoned C~2 to a depth of 200 feet. Chairman Steven~
son remarked that the General Plan has attempted to eliminate strip commercial zoning
in th~ area. Mr. Miller felt that Mr. Small was unaware that th~s portion of his
property was interim-zoned R-3; he probably still assumes ~t ~s C~2.
Member Adams stated it "made sense" to permanently zone one property all the way
through to R-I unless plans are complete, ~nd that also, the R-3 property in the Small
Apnexat~oo should be the same as ~t was prezoned.
Director Warren stated it was entire~y possible that the owner (Mr. Small) d~d not
understand tha~ hi~ property was being prezoned R-3; however, it was discussed w~th
h~mo
Member Vaden commented that the General Plan ca~ls for R-3 for this section and if the
Commission proposed to change this to ti2, they would be working contrary to the Pla~.
RESOLUtiON NO. 380 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to
(MSUC Stewart-Vaden) the City Council Permanent Zoning of Certain Properties in
the South~st Portion of the City from Interim RI1 and
to Permanent R-1 arid R~3
The permanent zoning of the East Palom~r Street Annexation, located at the east end
of Palomar Street from ~nte~im RI1 to permanent R-1 a~nd the establishment of a ~et=
back on One~da Street at 45 feet; for the Small Annexation located at the southwest
cora:er of Second Avenue and Qu~tard Street, from ~nter~m R-3 to permanent R-3
estab~hmert of frort setbacks at 25 feet on Third, Qu~ntard, a~d Second Awnues~
Further, f~nd~ngs be as follows:
Good plann~qg and zoning practice s'~nce ~t promote~ development compat:]b}e w'~th
t~t ~r adjacent are~
PdB[tC ~EAR~: South ~de of "K" Street~ East of Bank of America oa Third Avenue R-i to R~3-B-2-D a~d Establishment of a ~5" Setback
D~rector of P~g Warre~ stated th s was Comm~s~ion-~r~t~ted at: the ~eque~t of
the s~f[. M~. Warren submitted ~ p~ot plan, noting the tocat~on of the p~rc~, the
adiace-,t i~d use ~nd zoning. Several weeks ago, a request w~s considered for 8
var;ance t:o copstruct an ~p~,rtmert bullding w~th one dwe,,18,g u~it per 1000
feet of la~d area; t~s variance w8~ den~ed by t~e Comm~s¥~on. lhe C:omm~s;,on then
reqdested that anot~r hearing be cai'ted to consider zonb~g for a ~ower density df
development on the property end the attachment of th6 supplemertat "D" zone.
of the recent adjacent development to the east, which &pertmenz complex had one ~n t
per 4200 sqdafe feet of land area, ~nd the predom;nant ,~,,ngle fam,ly ~s6 ~n the
the Commission co~curred they would consider B=2 for this pafcel, (o*e unit per 2000
square feet of land area).
This be[rig the time and place as advertised, the pubi c he,ring was opened.
Mr. Edward Lou%te~et, 34~5 Valtey Vista Road, Bonita owner of the parcel
question, ftated he felt he w~s being per, al]zed by hav[~,,g it rezoned to th[f ~ower
density of R-3; that ail ot~er R-3 owners ~n the C~ty enjoy the JO00 square foot per
I ~n¢[ 'at~o. fie added that he had a buyer for the property for the h~gher density,
but that he wJi! not be able to selJ the Jane ~f the Commission rezones ~t to the
lower density; thaL no one will be willlng to pay the price. Chairman Stevepson
[~dlcated the parcel was now R-I, single-family, and that only on6 home can be built
on ~t now, e~d ~f the parce~ ~s rezoned, the appllcact w~l'~ be gettin9 R-3 zoning
for h~ property~
Mr. B~tl Re~d, a,;~ociated w~th Wh~tt[ngton Realty, spoke aga[r,,st the propo:sed rezoning
stat;rig he had a buyer for the higher density, and that at tha~ time, the pta~n~ng
staff had reco~ended to h~m that 20 u~,~ts be constructed on this proper'ty~
There being no further comment, either for or against:, the hearing was decJ~red clo~ed.
Director Warren d~cussed the proposed rezon~g :¢t;~ting the quesE~on of maximum
we I~ cootinuaiiy come up, and there is always the q~e~on es to how to prepCre the
property owners for ~t. The h~ghest der~s~ty for R~3 develop~nt should be considere~
for the car,tar of the City, 8md ~ot every property considered for R-3 should ~ve
h~gh dens[ty~ There are severeJ supplements for R=3 zone~: B*3, ~-4, e~c., 4~ the
outlying areas :nd ~here .deemed ~ecessary to promote harmony of ~eveiopment.
Member Adams remarked that th~s area does not reed i unit per 1000 sq~re feet of land
8rea; that the Comm~:~s~on ha~ been trying to promote l~er density for certain
of ~he C~ty ~r-~ ~tua~ions c~per~ble Lo thCs. The fact that an srbitrary ~a~es price
~rcor ~stent with the zonCng ha~ been established doe% ~ot justify the m¢4x~m~m density
zo~ ~
RESO.JT ON NO~ 381 Resolution of the Ciity Pi~n~ng Commiss~o~ Recommend ng to
(M$~C ~/~d~:~,~G~y~r} the C~y Cou,':~c~ '] the Lh~:g~ of Zone fo~ Property ~c~t~d
at the ~outh S~e o~ '~K" Street, East of the ~ank of America,
o~ ~h~O Avenue ~ R-~ to R-3-B-2=D ~:d the
of ~ ~5 ~oo~ ~etback
for e al;stance of ilO0 Feet be rezo~ed from R-] (~g~e-f~y~, to R=]-~-2-[~ ~;~d the
e~t=bJ~rmert of e g5 foot ~etb~.ck~
F~d~,~gf be e
i. l~e p~opo,ed (~ge represents good zon~qg p~,~ct~c~ ~ce it w))~ promote
PUBLIC HE~Ri~G~ Sout~ S~de of l~rd Avenue E~tem.;~o~:, 300 ~eet E~st of fourth A enu~
The epp]ic~t~o~ w~ read ~ which ~ request w.~ m~de to ~ezo~e f~om R=i to
proper~y ~oceted ~outb of ]~[d Aven~e Exten~oo, ~3sl of ~ou(th
D~'~ector of P)a~¢~'~g W~rren ~ubm~t:t~d ~, p~ot: p~. ~ot~ng the ~oc~t~o,~ of the property
d~d tDe adj~cert ]and use. M~. ~r¢~ e~p~3~red the propo ed rezoF,~¢9 wou d
property at the re~ of that p~esent]y zor, ed C-l, extend~9 to the ~ ~s~de, .~nd WOb~
be u~ed fo~ p~rklng of automoO~l~e fo~ the off~ce bu~Idi g pre:~e:ntiy be~og
Th~ being the t~me 8~d p~ace ~, advertised, the public he, ring wes opened.
M~%. [har~es ~ cKey, -epresert ~g t:he: app~c,~"t, l:ha~ieg Offerm:n, stated ther'8
as c~* washes, c~r dealers, etc., a~d fina!~y ~greed to leaAe the property to tbe
present people who ~:re putting up a*; off:~c:e bu~4d~g. The parcel of ]and to be rezo:~ed
Mr. Roberc No, ton, ~mb~[[ Terr~,ce, ~ked [r~at the C-] ~owed uses be de~reated for
~m. Mr. Warre't stated ~t 'efer~ t~ ~et~l u~e: and [ c~denta~ perking, but r, ot for
u~ed c=r ~OtSo
Mr Fr~',k Mcker~a, ofle of t~e lessee of the property, explained the exter~o~ ot the
office b~3d~-~g trey ~re c~ttr~ct rg wouid be of a Spa:r~;~h mot~ a~d ~m~ ;~ to t~e
(-~ property - to 9lye them ~f~c~ert pdrk~mn9 for theft otF~ce use~ ~e
the tr6ff~c p*oblem ~ the a'¢e~, especially notch9 that of the Motor Veh?c;e
i,qd~cat ~:9 th=t the rezoq~9 woo'Ad 8]~e~ ~te ~',y t;rafffc co~d~t~o~ for them.
Memoer 6oyer ~ 0 he fe~t it w~$ a : exce~ emi deveJopmert of th~ pro~tyo Ch~rm~n
Stereo-o' ~greed stat¢~9 ~t con~d.:'t, ~ h~, oporto,, po-~ bly be ~%ed for ~ R-b
RiSOLu~ ON Nb. 382 ResoJuc~cm of tke ~la~n~9 Lo~ri~'¢i~op Recommender:9 to ~e
(MSoC ~o~ms-G~yer] C;ty [Oel~C~] the C~:9e of Zone for Property Located or: t~e
South SCde of 'h~rO Ave,hue fxter)s~or , East of YOu~rth A~erue
from R-~ [o C: ~
l,, T~e propo:ed che~ge represent~ good zoning practice because it w~ll ei~monate
undeveiopdble ~sJ~nd of ~-J property ~h,~t ~¢; better related to ~e C-~ property~
A cors~derabJe d~fference ~n ele~a~o.~ separates ~ne re~den~Ja~ ~d from
proposed for cmmerc~J uSe~
CONDitIONAL dSE] PERMJT - P~BLiC HEARING: ~erYy Rienstre I Southeast ('or,er of R~erstr~
amd ~]Jtop Dr ye * Service Station S~e ~n C-J=D Zone
lhe app]~ic~on we~ read ~n wm]cb a requer~ ~- made for a~pro~al of ~ service sta~ on
site at the '~ou~e~t: corr~er of Rie~tr~, ~rd H~]ttop Dr~ve ~[,-, ~ proposed ~malJ ne[gh-
Dorhood :.' hopp~ ~g
Director of Planning W~re~ sublet:ted a p~o~ pian qot~g t~6 Joc~[~o¢~, adj.~ce~t i~nd
use 8rd zorl~qg, ke stated thatRJeqs~ra Street he~ beer: exterde¢ to lead i;~to the
acres of: v:c¢;~ land nexL to s~gle-fam~Jy developmeq~ l'~e area to ~he south ~s the
S~n b~eg'~ 6e.4 ~ Eleczr c Compa~ r~ght-of-w~y, t<.~ ~he rorth ~ the school, ~qd further
has bee~ obt~red CDr the property~ Mr, Warren ~dded tkat with proper grading, th~s
remaining area couid be developed to serve the needs of the ~mmed]ate neighborhood;
however, [t ]s considerably closer to another shopp:,qg cen~er tham normal ~ rot q~te
one m~
Fh~s being the t~me a~d place as advertised, the public hear~g ~es opened,
Mr, Heqry R~e~'.tra, tke applicant, stated he already has s~eone ~nterested ~n leasing
~he grocery ;*~ore, and ~r~ order to make th~,~ shopping ceoEer 8 c~piete unit, ~e
requesting approval of tFe ~erv~ce station ~te~ ~e added that whe~ ff~l~top Drive
goe~ through, ~h~s w~ ~, be a very bu~y stree~ ~[th 8 greet ~eed for the service station.
Mr, R~eq~tre further added ~hat he pJa~s to develop his ~hopp~g center at the 5ama
t~me as the >rea to the .¢outh wi~j be deve!oped.
Vice¢Che~rm~-, Stewart cautioned chat there h~ to be ~ome just~flcatio~ for a
use perm~, 8, nd q~er~t~oned wh6ther the ~pp] [68%t had a~y o~J company ~terested
s~[e, Fe fe~t the competition to, this f~e]d wadi so great Ch.~t the~e people ~hobld be
Jooki-~g for ~he 8pp([caqt ~d ~o~ v~ce ~er~a
There be~.*g ~o f6rt~er ¢omme~t, eithe* fo~ or agai~st:, the hearing wes dectared clo~ed.
Member ~dams f:elt there w~il be a '~me:fs" of ca, vice ~tetio~s ~n Lh~f ar~; tqat the,'e
w~l'l probably be t~o or three on the corner of ~}~top ~r~ve 8qd Orange Avenue~
O'er'actor Wet'cee ':tared th~:> ~-mexatJon wa:. st~J] pending; however, [ ~s prezoned
Member Smith ~r,d~c~zed the ~eed for the s~te here a~ any other stat:~on ~ o~e m~le eway..
Oms~rmsn Steren:.o~ feJt ~t w:=s pre~ture [o act oq t~_; ca~e; that the area wa~ "D"
zoned ~[d ~o p'i~q~ ~ave been ubm~tte~. ~r: relation ~o the ex~sting $choois, he
quest~oced the approval of a ~erv~ce ¢~a~o~ ~te hereo
Member Adams declared the ~hoppi[qg center area ~=,s q;~te s~/] to beg;~ with, ,--nd the
service ~t~t~o~ wo~ cie ~e~ve math aree for ~hop¥ dod park~,g~
MSC [V~de~Adam~ App~ilc;~t~o~ be den~ed ba~ed on the following reaso~ : t~,e ac:t~o? ~
premature =~ t~er~: ~ ~o comm~tmeqt or~ the property, and itt wou]d not be go~d zor,~r~g
or p ~ ~r,r,~ ~g
The mot~or ca~r~ed by the fo[~o~rg vote~ to~w~t~
AYES: Membe- ;'vader, Adan¥.~, G~yer, ~tewez E, ~'d
NOES: Membe' bm~th
AESEN~: Member
VAR t ANCE S
FdB~ C HE:~R~Nu: ~rker OeveJopmeqt Compa,~y - Nor'theast Cor~er {olo,,a~o ard "'-:~ ~:treet -
Setback Reduct~o,~ ~nd S~9'r~ Area ~ Architectara'l Appreva'i
The app~icat or wa,s re=d ~n which a red,est was made for reduct[o~ n setb~ck~ for the
service ,~t~t~on ~, foJ~ow~z or ~"' Street - 25i; to 0 for ~g~n$; on Woodl~wp ~r,d
Avenbe- =, 20 to I~ for c~:~Opf a~O a reque~t to ~,c:re~:se the a!~awed sign area co
3~2 square feet from 50 ~q~are feet,
D[recto,r of PJ,.~,ing Warre,-~ submitted a p~ot p~an r~ot~eg the iocat~on ~d adjacent
use, a~d ~xpt,~:[rg the app~c=~t s requests,, TPe r'ea$o~ for the ';arge s~gr w~ so
t~t ~L w;, J~ ~e v s~bte from the freew~y~ h~ever:, the staff qcest[o~,s the ~e~a for
The Comm ss o~ d~scu sed the proposed ~eg~sJ~oq or; b~board ~9n' :, ~d the d ~t~ce
t~ese ~9~s F~ad to be from the freew~y~ C~ty At~or;-ey Liodber9 stated a s~9n s~ch ~s
pr'opo ed by tE, e ap;~ ~c~ts tonight wo~d be ~n or~s~te ~9~ ~deot~fyi;r~9 the
~rd c<;.]d 'or be c~rs~dered as a b~Jibo~rd s~9". D~rector Wa,rear tffe~ discussed the
landscaping dggesti~g that the e~st~n9 trees be
~ s be~r'9 t~e t~me a~d piece a,s advertised, the p~bJlc hearer:9 w~s opened.
Mr~ C. Lefebvre, representi~9 H~rker beve~opmeqt ~omp~n~, explained the proposed
for ~9~s,, ~e ~tated tbey wa~t to make ar~ attractive st~t]o~ here because ~t ~s
reQuest~ w th the except[on of el~m~at~-g their freeway s;gn 8qd retai~ng some of the
trees. Whe~ Mo~tg~ery Freeway ~ 90~r~9 to be w~de~ed, there w~J] be aq ofF-ramp ~t
th~s uorner; t~refore, ~t is imperst ye to them that they be able to ret~ th;-
The tree~ or~, the prem~se~ are mufberry tree~, ~md becau¢¢e they are decFduous, ate qu;te
~q~ttr~ct~ve espec~ei]y ~n the w~rt:er mocchs. Qu~e a b~t of m=~ter}snce w~a~id be
voived to h:¢ve [o keep the ~e:aves rsked up at 8ii t;mes. Mr. ~efebvre requested that
[hey be a~'Jowed to replace the:ge tree~ w~th others of ~:, subst8nt~ai
Mr~ Lou:~s z';mpk~, 2223 E1 L~jorq Bou~ev¢,~rd, ¢.¢w'~!er and m~'r,=9er o~ the property,
cu:s:sed the ex~,~tir9 tree~f and +:he r~eed for rep]~c~9 them ~e tt~eo ~bmitted
photos of the ~. te tske~ from the HL'~ Street overpsg~ ii~d~ca~]~9 the reed for the r
J¢rge s;9,-~ %¢:~ce they wouid lose 50 % of their ~ccezs to the Jot ~djac~t to the
freeway when e ~]ew off-ramp ~$ co~tr~cted.
Mr. ~okn $ore~sor, ~$tf~ct E~9~eer for FumOle O~ Compery, explained the ~eed for the
77 ~qua¢e foot $;9~ ~stead of [me 67 as reques*ed~ ge deck.red that ~f ?.,i~ w~
~oweT, the b; bo~rd~ from the south ~nd the trees fr~ t~e ~o%th would I~krock ~t out.
They me.~:.red Lh~ he 9bt w~th the a~o of a l~rge cr~e, v,ew~r~9 ~t ~rom var~,ob~
~71
Mr, Bo B~ck~ey, ReaJ E'~tate Repreaentat[ve, San Diego CounZ'y, for ~umbie Oil Company,
stated the freeway ~ig~ was critical; their bu$i~e~$ is ~raff~c-or entated, ~
p~ay to ~ ~arge p~rt of the freeway, a~d th~s freeway, because of ~t$ proximity to
T~jUa-;~, ~ he~v ~y-t~fficked. Mr. Buckley added that th~ s~te w~s one of ~he be~t
he he~ s¢er~ ~ ~ ~o~g time, but un~es~: they c~n be ~ee~, by peopJe tr~ve~[ng o~ the
freeway, ~n~ these people can ~hange lane~ ~fely ir order to come [n~o their
the~ tqe ~te wou~d decrease in value consider~bly~ ~h:'~ ~ be ar~
~ign~ p~a~c~c ma~er~a~ a~d [c w~J'~ not be a flashing or revoJv[ng ~g~ He further
~dded ~t :t w~ to their advantage to m~ke the s~gr~ ~:~ ~hort ~ p~bJe ~r~ce t~ey
have to p~y for them~ rowever~ ~ th~ ca~e~ they feel ~t Jmpe~at ye to go to 77 feel
Director )f P,~a~r~qg W~r~en d~$cu~ed the p~oz p~'~ end the e~evat~o~ of the bb~di~g~
~e szeted the ~pp~icaq~ have agreed ~o the ~a~d~cap~g howeve~ ~f reCa[n~g the
existing tree~ w~ be a problem to them~ the~ the ~t~ff ~ go ~or~g w~th the re
quest Lh~t they be ~owed to replace the tree~ w~th g~d-~[zed tree~ A~ ~o the
the ~t~ff w ] go ~J,~rg w~th a~ of the re~ae~t~ w~th ~he except~o~ of the moduJ~
M~, W~rre~ ~d~ed tt~z there ~ho~d be s~e d~cre[io~ ~: to how far f~om the freeway
they ~hou~d be able to puc the~e Carge ~-~g~ Tr,ere w~J be :¢eve.~ ~erv ~e
in th s particular area a~d qoL ,=J~ of them w(i'~ De able to have s~gr~ th,,~t W:¢~ be
v~s~bJe from the freeway~
The Comm~ss~o~ d~scdssed the height of the s[g~o w~th that of the service state, or
the ~treet, the ~ex'.co sta[~or,, aL~d determi~&d te,,:¢t their $~g:* was 60 reel
Mrs. deJeo ~ew , i8 "¢" Street, ~:~ked the Co~s o~ to save as m~y of the trees
as possTbie.
Tkere be~¢g ';o f~fther commert, e~thez for or aga[~,%t, the hearing w~s decJ~re~
Member Adams ~e~d he ~ympath~zes w~th the eppi~ca~ts' request to rembve the tree:~; he
wo~d go alo-,g ~;th the replace~r~r, [po~s[b~ they couJd use evergreen trees), o¢
the dec :duouE trees.
Hember 6uye~ :,:t.~ted ~ v~ew oF the feet that the appJt:cant~ made a t~oroug~ ~t~dy of
the 8rea ~qd aete¢m~qed the ;~eed for th~ h~gh ~gq, he h8~ ~o obj;ect~ou to
v~ce-Che rma¢ $tew~rt ]qd~c~ted the need for a determlio&ti~o~ es to the height of
~ear ~he freeway; thai '~ could get m~r~d~co ous'~ ~f they are permitted to So ~¢
D~recsor Warre~ aec~a~ed t~t the staff ~ recommending that the freeste~qdi~g ~;~gr~
frort bE 8 ~tet~om~ry s~gr, 8Rd ~0~ a revolver,9 sig~, ~s contemplated. Mr. Lefebvre
~ta~ed he tad ~ro ~bject~o~ ~o
V;ce-Ch~tm~r; Stewart co~ented that he receotJy took a ir ~p ac:ro~s the country, 6'rd
ma~y cities, there were s~gns that coupe be se8~ from the f:re~way~;,, Mr~ Stewart
questioned whet~er th~s ~g~ could 0e pieced ~cro~s t~e st:~eet, c:]o~e'¢ to the freew,~y,
~d lowered somewh~t~ ~he prope, ty s ~t~ urder the s~me owner'sh~p~ D~ecto¢ W~re~
stated ~ WOu~ t~ke 8 zpec~=~ use v~r o'ce CJi'ce the ord[-~a!~ce does not provide for
~8~
Mr~ ;oseph B~-~te';, 542 I'Kli <;t,reet, mentioned the '~Bro~dwav'" s 9~ ~t F~fth ;~d
D~tector W~e' co~me~r ted t~at th{i~, wa% the perfect e~mp~e of why there ~ou~d be
~ he~9ht, ,~ze a~'d ~ght ~te-~ty re~tr~ction fo~
MSSC ~Ad.~ms V~de-) V~ ~oce be approved for the fo~ow~9: on "~ Street, ~ redu~t on
;n setback f~on ~5 fee[ ~o ze~o for s~g~'-; o~, WooO~wn ~"~d Color~do Ave~e~,
h~9~ ~ foot mod~=r ~ g'.~ 77 feet ~ oveta~ h,e~gkt, ~rter~ai~y I~ghted~ ore 2. x&
price ~gr; ~ne ~8" x 24" trad~o9 ~tamp ~ 9~:; o~e i'ffappy Motoring"' $;~9¢ or~ the
oF the bbi ~0~9 {~5 ~qcare. feet) ard o,~e H~ble si~gn o~ ~he bu~d~n9 (~0 ~,qu~re
I. ~he :r~mov~ o~ the tree:~ on the p~em ~:e~ ~o be ,ep~aced by otSer su~t~b'le
~. N~. T i;~:79 or revo~v~-~9
3. La~,dAc~p~eg to De ~ppFoved by the O],'ecto~ of P~ih:~]~9.
F~O~9:~ be ~ppro~e~ a~ f:o~
The~e ~re pr~c~c~'~ d~fferences a~ unnecessary h~dsh~ps w~t~ :~ the me~ ;~9
the ordinal,ce: s~s amended which Wou(d resc]t ~-: the .-tr[ct comp}[~nce of the
~e,e ~re e~cept cn~ ci~cumsta,~ce~ a:r:d cond~t~on~ ~pp~cab~e t:o the property
her~ ~ ~o~ved or the ~:~[ended use thereof thdt do -or apply 9e~erai~y to
p~ope~ty oz cJ~?~ of u e% ~ ~be ~ zo.3e. The number ard 9e~er~J s~ze$ of the
g 9:r% proposed Aeem eecess~y [o promote the 9e.-~er~ co~-por~te [m~9e of tPe o~ ,.
comp~qy, and to p~operty identify tSe proddct ~o~d on the premises. ]h[A :< -~t
9ener=i~y ~pp~ed to typ~c~! ~eta~ use.~
3. G~-nL ~9 th:~ v=r[ance :~ r, eces~-a~y for the p~eserv~t~on of the substa'-~('~: property
r~ght of the app~c~t. 'he s~9,~ co-~temp~ted have bee~ 9eneraJ~y apF~oved ~or
ot~er ~erv ce st~or,% ~n the C~ty, ~nd ~s recessary For f~r competition
Grant~'~g Ekes v~r;ance, w~il ~ot be mater~aiily detr~men[ai to the pubic we'~fa~e
or ~-jur;)u'~ ~ the propef[y ~mprovements ~ th~ zone or d~strlct ~ w~ c~ ~:d
property ~s ~oc~te~ :s~ce the sigRs contempl=ted w~t be compatible w:th
MS~L (G~y~ z~tewert) App~l oe the ~rch~tect~re of the bu~d~r~9, the
:;-,d p~ot p~ e:s ~ev ~,ed by the staff Street: tree~ sh~ be provided on t~e
Street fr'eot=ge Aubjec[ to the approva~ of t~,e Di~'ector of ~]~qn[r~go Street t,ees
ex}[ 1~'9 ~:~ the p~rk~y.- oR Oek~awn a~ Wou, d~aw~ :~kal~ be reta~r, ed~
M5~L (Ste~art-~aden) St.~ff [o make a ~tudy of the proper d~$ta~ce of s~9~s fr~ the
freew~7 w tb recomme[d=t~on~ for projected heights Of $~g~x~ A su99est o~ ~:E
th=[ ~ cceck De made of the h $toty of wh.~t P,~S t~Ken p~ace ~ other c~t~e~ w~tK
s~me problem.
Pua:~L ~EARJN~: ~t~ Rose of L}[r~a Church .~ 293 "P" S~. -Setback Reduct~o~ to O" for re~ce
T'he ~pp;:;cat,;c~ w~ ~e~d ~ w~ch ~ reque~ w:~ ~de ~o~ ~ reduction, ~ ~etbacK
20 feet to g feet for the purpose of e~ect~n9 ~ six foot h~9h ~%~ ~ :k
Director of F~a~mi~g Warren submitted a plot plan noting the area, adjacent land use,
~nd exp!~,ilh~ the applicant's request° He stated the e~t~re parking area ~s black~
topped ~ind uCed ~ ~ p!=y area by the chiidren attending the sc~ooI~ This same type
fence a~ height is used in ma~y public School ~reas~
Mr~ Bill ~row~, mem~e~ of the church, st~ted t~e ~afety of the c~ildren would be
jeopard;zed ~f the fence was any lower~ !mmed~ate!y across the street is the access
TO ~he Safeway Store which attracts a great deal of trafflic, and the ~mmediate co~Ker~
of the app~ic~nt i~ T~e safety oF the children at play. They a~k that their request
be apF~o~ed.
£~a}irma~ Steven:~on ~,oted that t~ere w~s ~o obiection from t~e neighborhood°
~ember Adams ~tated ~t wa~ j~st~fied, and a desirable t~n9 to have the fence this high.
~$b{ (Ad~Vade~) Approvai of the varii~-~ce for request in reductio~ i~ front yard
~etbaeA from ~0 ~eet to ze~o on ~lv~ado Street for the purpose of erect~q9 a 6 foot
Fi:ndifigs are as foi~owa:
i, There are practica! differences and unnecessary hardships withi~ the mea-iF9 of the
ordinance whlch would result i~ the strict compt~a,sce of the provisions of
or~ i ua
lhere .re exceptional c~rcumsta~ces and conditions applicable to the property
herein invoived or the intended use thereof that do eot apply generally to property
or class of uses ~n the same zone° The fence ]s of an open-type constructlon
does not fnterfere wlth the purpose of the setback. S~nce the area to be Fenced
i!s par[ of a playground, it seems impractical to have a portion of ~t outside the
~o 6rantlng th~s vs~iance is ~e<e&sary for the preservation o¢ the substantial
property r~ght of the applicant; most public schoois within the community have
such a chain !i~k fence or their property lines regardless of setbacks.. Without
this varlia-!ce, the appi c~t ;s deprived of: the safe use of ~is pl~y
4~ Grantlng t:h[.s variance w~Jf not be materlaiiy detrimental to t~e p,biic welfare
or ~njur~ous to the property [mproveme~t~ ~r~ the zone or district in which
p~operty ts I!oceted, since the type of fence contemplated w[]l be open ~n nature
~nd w~J! r~ot rest:r~ct the i~ght or a~r of th~s or adjacent property.
P6BL~C ~E:AR;NG; RoberT: ~i~d Alice ~T~g - 66f and 663 Del Mar Avenue - Request to Buiid
o~ an Easement
lhe ~ppiication was read in which a request was made to split a !ut and build on a
15 foot easeme,~t. It was noted that the application was signed Dy twelve adjacer;t
property own:ers fav~r!~g this
O~rector of Piann!ng Warre~ submitted a plot plan noting the location amd expJ~ir~irg
the app cart"s request, wh[ch was the. iack of the 50 foot frontage on a deC,cared
Mr~ Warre~ stated that 15 feet was aOequate for a single-family dwellin9~ Chairman
SLeve~on questioned whether the fire equiipment could get in; Mr. Warre~ indicated
~h~s was the m~n~mum w~dth for this equipment0 He added that the entire block was
zoned R-~ however, there were some Jots that had two dwe~r;,gs on them. The area
is very weil kept a~nd a~trsc:tive, a~i w~th deep iots. At: one t;me, there w~s Sor~'~
ta~k of combi~rg the rear Jots or: the west: s~de of the street with those at the
rear of the Jot~ on Third Avenue, but th~ ~s never happened.
Th;s bein9 the t~me and p~ace ss advertised~ the pub'iic hearth9 was opened.
Mr. Robert ~i~ng, the appi]c:art, stated he wished to spl~t the lot, h~vi.~.9 the e~semeirt
beion9 t~ the property owner at the ,rear of the Jot. CFa,'rman Steveosop asked whether
there were apy pJans to have. a dD~b~e usage for the easement - to be used by Doth
houses° Mr. ~in9 sa~d there was not. He ~dded that there was a d~scussion at o~ie
time to put i; a street using part of the rear of these Jots between "ff*~ an~
Street and OeJ Mar Avenue, but th~s is :~ever 9nih9 to happen. T'he lot ~ pre~er;tty
too deep to take care of any s'[zeDte ~andscap~n9, and there ts a bed9e separat~n9
the ,ot~ or the south side o~ the property~ Mr. Kii~9 stated he f~ter;ds to sei,} the
lot in the re~:r; that ~t w~,; ~ot be u~ed to construct ~ home for rent~i purposes~
Mr. Peter DeGraff, 665 De~ Mar Avenue, submitted a petitioo s~gned by sever~, of the
adjacent property owners protestin9 the request° ~e dec~a~ed that they li/e i~ a very
unique area, having ]ot~ 290 feet deep a~d most of them beie9 90 feet w~de.. ~ey
moved into this ~e.~ becadse the lots were deep, a~d every one, with the exception of
this Jot, has bee!~ built upon and al~ with quality homes. Mr. DeGraff addedt ~,
Mr. Dick $chut~er was to be present tonight to 91i.ve the Comm~ssior~ ~ realtor's po:~t .~f
view ne this; however, he could~"t make it. What M~. $chu]iler i~tended to ~*k was
the Comm~ssior rot: break up th~s unique street a~d let i~ a '~h~odge-podge" deve!opment.
Mr~ DeG~affwe,.t~ o~ to comment on the Ge~era~ P~n which ~ecommer~ds h~gh-dens~ty
development for thi~ area; the residents wi~h to protect their lots aga~st
'~fracturi~9" of lots a~d same them for a better devefopmeot in the future, wheq the t~me
is right. This particu!ar lot is 65 feet w~de, aod with the 15 foot easemeot, M~o 9e-
Graff que~t~o~ed where the applicant proposed to put a 9ar~ge o~ the rema,~'o~n9 50 foot
wide Int. The names on the petition, he added, are from the 4 property owners ~mmediately
surrounding t~e lot, a~d ~rom 10 property owners across the street~ Mr. DeG~aff asked
the peopfe ~n the audience who came to protest the request, to stand. It was r~oted
that 12 persons stood up. ~e then added that most of those who signed the ~pp'iic~t]o~
favori~9 the request aliso s~gned h~_~ petition opposir9 it becar~se of
at first.
Mr. J~ C Kromschroeder, 629 Oe] Mar Avenue, declared he has a ~]0 foot wide Int. ~e.
fe~t if this request was approved, it would ~tart a precede~to Mr.. Kromsc~,roeder
discussed the v~ca~t property ~t the rear of thelfr lots and those }ninOn9 it or, the
east, stating there was perhaps 400 feet of vacant property here° A street just
Elm Street could 9° ~r Fete at: some fu~u,:e t~meo He added that four of his ~e~gh. bo~s
have already expressed their co~sent to have a development come ~n ~t the rear of their
prope~tles.
Mr. Robert kio9 remarked that most of the homes on the block are o~d homes, aPd he
Fei;ed to see how it would start ~ precedent for th'is so~t of th,~ngo ~e noted some of
the other lots that ~ave two dwellings on them at the present time.
Mr° DeGraff pointed out that most of the homes Mr~ K~n9 talked about had second dwe!ii~9~
_ that were not uged ag permar, e~t homes - they we,re either sheds or guest: ho~s w~!ch
perm~ tted.
Mr's. Peter ~eGra~f stated that she (ives ,,~ext to this ~ot, ~d enjoys the trees, t~e
country atmosphere aAd the spaciious~ess of the ~ots. She asNed that the ~equest be: de~iedo
Member Acl~ms requested that the people oppo$1ng and the~ the people favoring the
st~.rd~ ir wa.= r:)ted that ~2 opposed and 3 favored the recluest~
Hember vade? commented t~'at the Comm~ssi;oF ~$ rea[,]y rot aware of the va~;d~ty oF t~e
pet~tior~. L ty Attor?tey Z¢:~.dberg stated that there: ~$ ~otk[ng wro~g w~th the f[I rg
Of ~ pet~t~o~ - t g~ef the peop;e the c~r~ce to state the~r ~pros~ ara 'co~,~
the ~bject matter; ~o~ever, ~t ~ rot t~ b~ treated a~ test;mo~y. T~$ app~ e¢ to
Jetterf race red by t~,e Co~:~o::
1Pare be~r~9 mo f~rther c~meq~, e~.cqer for or ~ge[~'¢t, the h, ear~ng wa~ ~ecJ~red c,o~ed~
V~ce-E~a rmar, Stewa~rr rembrked that ~t w~$ ~ot a-commor, ~r.~ the pe~t to grant a ~p~ ft for
lots as deep e~ this o~e; however, he ~d he wa~ perplexed abo~t the fact that the
~ame people ~]g~ed both pet[t~oq~. ~e ~d~ed t~t ~,'t wa~ regrettab!e tP~t ~ol m~ny
there ~ot~ were ;o deep that the ~ear of t~ot:~ could ~ol be u~ed. A ~t~dy .:rou~ be
made of the prope~t:y owners ~n the ~rea to see whethe~ their lots wou~d be aw~iab.[e
to oper, ~p for
Cha,,rma~ Steve~,so~ declared he wou;d ]~ke to ~ee a study made of tnis are~ ~cro~
tFe street the area back~ up to c~merc[=l or ]~:~rd Avenue ~nd th'~s could we[~ bec~e
R-3 zor, t~g someday. Vice-Chairman, Stewart agreed, and added that the study
how mar,y ~ec:ond re~de'~ces or the Iot~ were beir:g occup ed at present~
MSdC (Ad~ms'vader) Act~o~ or tk[~ ~tter be cont~q~ed until t~e meet:~g of November ~5~
1965, and the staff d~rected to make a study of t~e area for possible redeveiopme~t~
PUBLIC ~EAR'~G: G~eater Sout:h~ester,~ Corporat~o~ - 323~ 333~ 343 Fourth Aven~e -
Reque~t to Allow Ap~rtmect Co~p~ex Under Cond[t:o~ Not Prov;ded
the Zon~r~ Ordir~r~ce
]he app!: ~caL o~ wa~ re~d ~n which the fo,~o~ng reque~t~ were ~de to con~truct an
apartme~t co~Jex: a :ed~ct~o~ tn fro~,t yard setback from 15 feet to 5 feet o:~ Center
S~reet, to be u.~ed part,ally for commercial ~se; permission to build to 8 ~tor,e~ plus
a penthouse and 89 feet high,; perm[ss~or' to construct 202 un~ts w~th Je~ th~'~ required
park ~ r,g.
D ~ rector of P lafl~ i qg War ~eq ~ubm[ tted a p ~lot p~an, rot[ ng the iocat ~on ar.d aaj ~cer t
lend use. ~" s ~'~ tee ~te of the old M.O.O~. p~cknrg ~hed, and preseet!y zo"ed R-3,
Mr. War~en d;sc~ed the p~r:~, stating that ~ the pcoposed ~ew zor~g o~d
approval is g~ve-~ to h~gh r~e apartments for th~ ~,rea which could be [0 ~to~,~e~
Accor'd[ng to the~e piam~, the,re w~J~] be two ~p~r tmert buildings, and ~n the ~e
this w~;,; be aqother building which w~ be the re~tadra~t and shop~:~ A~o, [r the
rear of th[~ bu id~9 w~t~ be the re,.rear[on area w~th a swimming poo~, arco D;rector
War~e~ the- ~scu':sed the p~rk~n9 proposed; h, av~:~g ~02 ~,q~ts with ~ sp*ce~ per u~[t, th[y
woudJ reed 303 '~:p~ce$. ~%ey ~re propos~9 28~ spaces aod with guest pa, rk~,r~9, their
would be 293 Mr. Wa~re~ added that they discussed c~b~,r~n9 s~e of their p~k~9 area
or the south w]Eh that of An expanded ~ty Recreation park[~9 Jot; however s}ece they
do propose to use part of their complex for office use and for a restaurant, Lhe parker,9
requ~re~er, t~ w~.~[ d~ffer. 5[rector Warren further adde~ that what the Comm~ss~or
app~ove~ for th~s proJect w[~}~ set the treod for the new zon~9 ord[r~ance This
~o~th~'n9 ~,ew for LhaJa V~st~ amd w[]J be ar a~et for the City, ~ed the Co~s~on
sh.ou~d encourage ~t ~n ~:r appropriate ma~rer; hoover, the new zon~qg ord~rarce ~s ~ome-
what more restrictive th~'~ wh~t ~s proposed here~ ~f possible, ~e continued, the Eom-
m~:~s~on ~houid ~ndJcate to the develope,r¢ ton~9ht approva~ of the h~gh r[:e amd 9[ve
them some ~;cat~o~ a~ to density. ~e remarked that t~ ~t~ff questioned the pJaceme't
of the shop~ ~ the carter of the complex, ~,J~ce ~t would e'courage people from the out-
~i~e to come i~to t~is residential area.. As to the p~r'k~qcj, most of it wi]Il be be~l~eath
the ground - ~ubtarr-.~nea~ p~rk[ng and they ~;so propose to have tandem park~g~
di~cuss~og th s w~th the ]c~ff~c E~g~neer, he sugge~'ted the stal~s be w~dene~ ]f tee
tena~t~ are going to pa~k t~ei~r own c~r~. ~e ~o commented that ~n mo~t p~ace~
t~-~dem pfrkirg i~ u~ed~ they have attendants or~ har~d to park tMe c~r~
~h ~ be ~g ~e' t~me ~;~ p~ce a~ ~dvert~:~eO~ [~e puD~c he~ng wa, s ope~e~o
M,r~ Fr~ok terra re, 37~5 Put,er D~;ve, P(e~dec~ of ~reater Sout~ester,r Corporat,o'-,
~tated the7 w~J~ h~ve f~ve different type~ of f~oor p~,~n~, w~th eac~ ap~rt~: h~v~rg
~t~ ow~ baJco, y, -~-~g~r~g fram ~ bachelor apartment w~ch w(l be 470 ~quare feet
a balco~y~ 920 ~u~re feet i~ncJudiiqg the b~co~y for a I bedroom, ~ bedroom~ ~ J~96
sauare feet p~u~ ~84 for the ba~co~es~ 3 bedroo~ wJil have J554 s~uare fee:t p~us Z76
~qu~re feet for the t~ree ba'~cor~e~ Mr~ Ferre ra remarked it wats their i ti-rtL nOW
CO reduc~ the rumber of .a~t from ~02 to ~75 a~,d reque'~ting that they be allowed to
have commerc~ai u~e on the first f~oo~ of the ~orth tower on Center 5treat They ~e
k~Jso reque~t~ng that they be eJ~owed to u~e al~ or any of the rooms ~-this to.er for
e~ther re~]dercez or off,ce use Th~ would not change the aesthe~ c~ of Tk: bu~Jd~ng
~'he reduct~or n etback request for this ~treet wa~: for addlt~o~a] sp~ce to be u~ed
for park~r~g Mr Ferre r-~ ~d c~ted they could get approx~mateiy 40 ~dd t~o~J
oa Ce'~ter Street~ 0n the south ~de of the compJex, they c~p get 80
~pace~ which wgJ] g~ve the C~[y 40 more '~'p~ce~ ~f combined w~th the recreational
parking area Betweep ~he two buiJd~ng~, they propo?e ~38 ~pace~ and w~th the 2
of ~ubterr~e~n p~rk ~g, ~t woula bring the tote] ~:p~ce: up to 493~ ~ the future,
they pl~n to u e one tower for re~dent~al and one for off ce
Membe~ V~den questioned the ~erv~ce truck acce~ Mr ~erre~,a ~oted or the plan~
the area for the ~erv~ce trucks which w~]~ be ~ the basemegt p~rk ng ~ree w~th ~
service elevator going to ~1[ floors~ [r~ a]~, there w[l~ be approximately 191,000
sqb~re feet of ~-d ~re~ that w~J~ be used for park~ng The re~t~.a~ bu~id~ng
the center of Ehe p~o~ect w~J~ be a threei~tory co~astruct~on; the ~ec~nd tory
(6000 ~quare feet) w ~1 be u:zed for conve~tion'~ ~:nd recreation~l purples, the
re~taurart w Jl have a seating cepac:~ty of 320 peopJe~ ~he d~?tance between the
bu~Id~,~g~ w~l~ be ~38 feet u~]e~.~ they go commerc~a~ for the r~o~th towe~, ~in which c~e,
they will o~e 8 feet, A~ ~o ~he t:,ndem parking, Mr. Farter,r= ~t~ted they p~ to have
aq atce,~d~nt o~ du~y, double .~h~ft, to park the te~*~t~:: ~tomob~e ~
Mro Bob M~e~ co-~eve~oper~ stated they have go~e ~'~ f~r ~ they ca~ width cheer
and now they mu~t h~ve the Comm~s~:~o~ c feel~rg~ oq~ t he $~d the commerc~ a~d
the re~-~de~t ~i ~pect of the project w~* very important to them,
Mr William Far~a~r, Pr~'~cip~ E~g~nee,r, remarke~ that qu)te ~ few ~ter~t]on~ ii-: the
plarf were proposed verbally tonight; therefore, they ~re ~]ot prepared to m~ke recom~
me~dat~o~ o~ the a~re~ p'~:r~ ~h~ eve~r,:~ng~ The ur~dargro~r,d sta~l ~idth ~s qu~5t~on-
able a~ f,~r b pratt ca;~zy ~ concerned; the ~t~l~ around the west wail present
*er~ou~ hazard, ~he drlveway ramp~ com~nce ~t the curb and Lh~ wouJ6 g~ve them
I~m~ced :ire, According to Lhe p]aqs, two in and out r~mpz are *h~p .~d a third r~mp
w 11 be prov~ided; the~e are r~ther cio:sely >~paced~ Tb uhe subterr~nea~ parking, they
wouid ~'agge t one r~mp ir ~,ad o:ne ramp for cars go~r~g out, th~ is impo'~tart e* they
may ~,verege ~000 cars gong ~ and out ~ day Any p~rk~g for the commerc~ i area
~ho_ d b~ co~ven ert~y located ~o th[ building
M. Ferreir-: decl!~red they propo*e to e~m~ate o~e ramp ~r~d re]oca[e the othe~~ t~o]
a~ to the vert~ce~ curb, it ~11 go t) ~5 feet beJow the gro~d ~eveI A~ to the width
of the ~t-~J~, the r arch~[ect,._ fe~ they couJd get by with 6 ~[-:che~ let: per rt~
inasmuch as a~ ~ttendant will be park ng these automobiies; however, they can cha~qge
this, Mr Ferrei,r~, added that the pla~s cost them $60,000 wkich ~'ii,~ not cheapoH
D~ec/or war-eh di~cu sad the f~w ch~inge'. ~d s~t~d he was not soJd on the um!~m~ted
use of the north towe~ for commfrc~ use if ~t w~s go ~g to be u~ed also for
dence~ Parking co~d be ~ p~oblem for these m~ed u~e-, Mr War-er: added that: the
developer~; m~,~t have '¢Dme ~nd~cat~on from the Comm~ ~o~ ~f they are to proceed amy
further w;th their
~ember Yede~, que~t~ored the f~¢e protect~on~ for tb ~ complex 3~rector Warren
th¢t :t wes ~ problem, at present, the ,,.8me .¢% 1K6 Depar~mert has w~th Freder~cka
(ha]rm,¢:~ Sterem~o~ commented thac there were ::o many ,~¢pects of thi~ project that he
~ou]d ]~ke more z~me to study some of the,use
Hr. 8Db ~ ~ rqd~c~ted th:~ ~t wou~d be ~pprox ma, te~y ~ f~ve m~'~] ~o'~;, do,(ar project
]he bu~di¢,cg tseif w~i~ have e':obgh steel ;n ~t ~0 that ~t could be corver~ed to
commerc ~a i or
Hember radar remarked that this was qu~te a project for Chui~ V~ste, ~nd w~d suggest
hav~,';g a work, hop meeting to review these plans Hember Vaden ~md cat6~ trat~ ge~eraliy
speak,rig, Lhey do go :tong with the general
~ce-Cha~rman Stewart stated that o~6 are~ he ~:~: co¢~cerned wlth ~s the ~mpact a con-
vention would h=ve oq the 3re~, ~:nd al~o the parkipg pre,:ct(bed for the restaurant
and the conve'~tior hali~ ~r~ Ferre~ra ~tated ~hat at cor:ver~t~or; t~me~, they w[~] have
possibly three ~tte~dt~t5 p~rkiqg
Stewart felt the app, c:~t~on ~hould be mod~¢ ed to br~',g ~t up'to-date, and que~:t~ored
the reaction of t~e ¢pp~c~'t as to hav~]g or, e half of the north to.'er for o~f~ce u~e
and th~ otter half for re3~dence~. H', Faire r,a agreed w;th th~s ~;ugge~t~o~ and declared
that should the need be ~ust~i: ed, they can come back to the Comm~s:s~o-,, a~d request
lhe Comm¢5%1¢o-* d~&cus~ed ~ possible date for a workshop and concurred that lhursday,
October 2J be se* testat ye!y, or 8~y ether day of ~16xt week
NSGL (Stewart=;~-de~ Act o or th~¢ matteY b6 cort~ued unt i the meeting )f November
~965.
~etter from D, racquet = b~ action, al S~gn for Sequoia :owe, r~ Apartments
November [, 1965.
D~sc~55 o,* - Request to Vacate ~D" St~eef, West of No;~t~omery freeway
D~¢ecto¢ of Plarn:i~g Warren submitted a p~o[ p4an not~,'~g the /ocatioq of the ;treat and
explal:i¢ng that both s~de:; of th~s street a'e owned by S.~rte Fe Ra~road. Soo~er or
la,er, ~[ might be de.~fr~ble to have *'0" St"eez or ~;~e otbe~ street serve th ~
as ~t deve?ops; howezer, ~nce thifs :street r~ow ~erve.s or]y the Saute Fa, the
Mr.. E~ G. Stubby., representing Sar~te Fe Rdi:~road, O~::c~:*sed the road ~r~d~c~t~r~g
put there to ~erve the former ~erc~]e~ Powder Plant b~-.ce this ro~d does not co~nform
to t~e M~*ter P~n for t~e [~¢ or th t of Nat:~o~4 C~t:y, ~nd ~here Cs a-,other method
of ecce~, they feel '~D' Street ~hOula De vacated. Mr. Stubb~ added that they w II be
w~lli~g to dedicate ¢ uff~c~e~t r~ght of way for a roa~ to serve the t~de~and.¢ dave op-
men t ~
MSoC (Stewart. Vaclen) Recommend to City Cou':cil the vac.~t on of IICI Street~
Disc~:~,~: on Relocation of Do9 Pound ,;nd Location of R~ I We~t of Mortgome~y Freeway,
Drrector of Pia;r ng ~ubmitted a pJo[ p~a" not ng the area ~'~J the proposed
of the ra~Jro~d ~pur along "G" Street to :erve [he 75 acre f~,[ 8re~ ~h matter
refer~ed ~o t~6 P~amq *g Comm¢~o~ ~y the Cob'c [ fo,r b rec)mmepdrt~or The City
Pourd ~ e, ,~ tfe p~h of t. hrs proposed !ocet~on ~od th~s ~li h~ve to be re~oc~ted..
beer- u~der di~cu*~;:or since test Mn'ch, ¢~td they agra6 w~th the Pia~m ~g Departme,, t
thee some othe~ aJ~g~ment other th=~ "u' Street wou~d be mor~ desirable ~f [~qds and
time wod!d permit. TEe t~m6, however, ;s grow ~9 :;hart ard they ~'dv6 ~0
co~z of tke e~per~e :}f ext:er,d ':9 the tr~ck to the mea'~ h~gh t de 'Jire 'ne Pc: t
O[~tr:[ct w~¢![ pry for the tr~ckS beyo;r~d that ~:nd provide for the r~ght~of-~,.:y for
with, ]yce [~g;:~eer4~,g to use ~ port,on at the~r property for a r~fght-of-way. O:~,e of the
object~o~ ~; the use of the :treet for r~[i p~rpos6~ that '"G~` btreet :~: -,~t ~
stree~ ard the ~re.~ ~: u~de~e;oped.. As = ma~ter of f~ct, Mr Reupsck cor.*f~ued, t~ey
have topp~d t-;k;~g tour:¢ thro.gh tf~-'e becdus6 of the co~d;t,or ~f '~G'i Street; they
do however, t I~ corot rue to t:~ke ~r,d~vidu~]> ~';tar~ ted n ~ndusrr[ei ~oc-:t~'~.
budget fo* the ~ext year pr)po~es th,~t they ~per,d $725,000 fo~ development of thC:
stdrt qg [ro~ the foot of "J" ':treer; they a]:~o propo~.e a mew tho, oughfar6 ¢rl ~b;:.
;hey ha/e d scu~ed hav~g o'q ~r~d off ,remp on H? Street, a~nd ~v;,'9 the u:se of
Street fo, ra[j purpo:,e~ w :i s=ve them _, g~eat da~ of mo,~ey ~',d c[me~. M,~.
have offered to pubi c ze thC 75 acre f b i, which the Port fee,~ wcJuid be very d~ovac
tageou~ to tk ~ aree, :¢ nee they are f~:c~g compet it o- for ]e~u~tr~es here¢ W zh
help OF the ~an D ego, A~zo aard [a:~te( ~ R,~[W=y, arid the t~ct that they do ¢,ow
two appi~cat]o¢: pend~ng~ zhey caq w~[t ro larger to ge[ t~ack~ r. this area
D,~ecto/ War~re~ d~scussed the re]ocat~oq of th~ ~o9 P'o~r,d, ~imd recommended that [t be
moved just north of where ~t ts now to make room for th~s n~w ~gnmeqt.
MSU[ (Stewar[-Va~e~} ~ecommend approv~J of the mew ~];gnmemt for the rc Jro~d spur
'~G' S[reet, etd the reiocat~on of the Do9 Fod.d [o ju:t no~th of where ~t ~ p*e~en[~y
Joc~ted, !¢ order to make room for these
Request f¢~_~rov~[ of Schoo~ Site - ~a~t of Fr:~ces~ Mano~ dn'~t ~4
Director of Pla'' ~g Warren reque:~ted that the met;er be po tpooed u~t[ the meet i~g of
November [, ~965,
Report of F~d n~¢ -~De~! of Dr.. Albe*t KJug [o Comm~.~.s~o~ Aetna? Benylin9 ~.--r~-ce
360 "F'~ Street
The repOrL Of f[nd4rgs wa reed [-~ whack the applicant requ6 ted a var a;~ce to perm:it
16Ss than the ~ r,~mum staT~dards requ 'ed for perk 'g by the C~ty zo; ~9 ord[~,en~.e;
reqde'*t e~so [;rc]~ded a reduot~o,~ ~ 'equ[red parking fr~ 2;0 sp~c6: to ~9] sp.~ce~
D~ector Wa're¢~ remarked that ~ mo~e deta~ ~ed repair w~d be se~t to the 6ourc[] pr,or
to the;r pubi~c hearse9, NSEC; (Guyer=Stewa~t) Approvob of report o~ f 'di~g~,o
ORAL £OMM..N~CAligNS
Mr I~rark ~e~reiira~ 37t5 Putt~ D~,ive, 6on~ta, ~eferred to t~e t~gular-~haped p,~rce~
the vac~z;o~ of Mo: ; Ltre~[ ~-d : rezo~i.'g~ Ne a~Ked f,~r :omc ~ugge~tion~ from t~e
Cumin ~'s[o' ~ ~ to wh=t ~se Fe c~q put th : parcel.
D:recto( oF P~' 'g ~cre~ rd~c,~ted t~at the Corem ~ )- h=d a~teady expre~;~ed the
thought's 0m [h~ ~ubject: ~1 the~( pubi[c hear~ng:~
For ~ C ty F~r~. H,r ~'e:r;re~'~ '>rated th :~ w~ d~scou~ted bec~u-e t;e p,~rce] w~; too
mill on doiie~ ~ acre for the ~mprovemepts~ He 8dded he wg'> reque&ted to appear
before the Comm~o~ ~or~9ht to appe~ to [he~r 9ood jud9me~t f:3r s~e su99est~o~ for
Cfty Attorney :;~ndberg stated the ¢~e ~s determ ned by th6 zo~9, which ;;~ th~& ca, e
~s R-l. Mro ~erfel[T8 dec~a~ed he could not use 1t for s ~gie-f~m~ly contt;~ t or.
b rector ~¢re,* i~d;~cated ~[ m gat be po:~sible w~th reduct~ors ~e setback~ ~ty Attor~ey
L~edbe:r9 felt tb;s was a good case for a var~aqce. Hr~ Ferre~¢~ declared t~*t bot~ the
C;ty Courc;~ a~d Pian~-g Comm~s:~on, 8t previous ~:et~ngs, found ~t ~ot suit=b!e [o'
R-~ use ard the¢eby ~t w~ mandatory at that time, that the subdiv deir remove L fr)m
~ubd~v~io~ g~ector We((er :~teted he wasq~[ here 8t the t~me th~s Jot wes creeEc~ but
could ~s~dfe Hr, Fe~re~r8 that a lot such as th~s would r;ot be creeted tod~y~ Fe
[here ~hou~d be ~ome w~y to c~ea~ th~: up, 8qd th~ ~s what the Comm~s~o~ tf~ed ~o
Ch~¢(m~n Steveo%o~ commented that he h3dr~ t Lkoug~t much about the property ~ce the
Comm~s:s~o~ . J~st action cfi ~t kgwever, they couJd t.~Ke Jt under advisement, perhaps
encourage t~e Staff to do ~ome more thir~k~ng o~ ~t, 8~d perhaps at thei:r next workshop
meeting, they couid d~cus~
V~ce-Eh~rmair Stewart declared the last plat they had w~~- exce]Je~L, ~ his oporto-,,
felt the ~tuet~on out the(e deserves a (ecomme~ded act~on fr~ tke Com~ss*og; the
street p~ttern ~ hdzardous, and ~t (~ ~ w~ste of ~and. The l~raff~c Erg meet recommended
that. you ~hou]d never bring two streets together at ~c:ute arigJes; ~t shouid be ~t r?ght
~,.,gJes, ~th the vac~t~o;- of Hos:~ Street, ~t would add more ~pd to tF6 property ~o
it could be
Cha~rm8~ Stevensoc questioned whether there could b6 any appeal from the Councb!.
declared ~mmt. tbe odin half ~)f Mos~, Stweet was dedicated to the C:[ty 7 year: ~go,
that the L:t¢ ~odrlE;4 ~,rgue~ ~oout the .ecess~[ty of ma~ntair~qg Mos> St,ee: because
C;ty r,ever !mpr3ved th~ ~treet. ( ty Attorrey L~'dberg :;.ugge:,ted he co~ ?de~ th6 igc'!
Bi}ck Act, Mf~ ferr~Jr~ %t~ted he ~ ~ot f:am~;'~r w~th t~:~ igii Act, but d~d ;~ot
~46'¢8 ~t wob~d apply ~ this (.'~e. ~e added t~t he ~: ~ook~9g forward to any sug9
t:~o-, the Commis~¢oq m~y have fo~ th~:; p~rcel of
AO OURNMENr
MS~C (¢8d~h-Guyer) Meet ng ~djour~ s~'e d~e. Meet';¢g ,~djouf~ed at ii;50
Re::pectfu~iy submitted,
~enn e M Fula~z ~
Secret~r y