Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1965/10/04 ORIGINAl MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA October 4, 1965 The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista was held on the above date at 7 P.M., in the Council Chamber at the Civic Center wlth the following members present: Stevenson, Stewart, Johnson, Vaden, Adams and Guyer. Absent: None. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Assistant Planner Terrell, City Attorney Lindberg, Junior Planner Lee, and Principal Engineer Harshman. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Johnson noted the following changes in the minutes: In regard to the public hearing for permanent zoning that property at Bonita Road and Otay Lakes Road, Member Johnson stated he voted "No" for this continuance of the hearing. On page 4, Member Johnson seconded the motion approving the conditional use permit, not Member Comstock as stated. Member Johnson then noted a separate motion which he asked to be inserted: MSUC (Johnson-Vaden) Recommend to City Council that all plans for any future City building sites be originated with the City Planning Commission before the sight is selected. MSUC (Johnson-Adams) Minutes of September 20, 1965, be approved, as corrected. VARIANCE REQUEST by S. Muraoka 115 E. Quintard Street City Attorney Lindberg reviewed the matter stating the Commission denied the variance request at their last meeting to the applicant for use of his shed for fertilizer storage. The variance was necessitated because the existing zoning does not permit such activities, and it was understood that this shed was no longer a valid non- conforming use since it was stated it was not in use for two years. During the week, however, Mr. Muraoka and his attorney came in and produced several documents (bills of lading, etc.) proving that he had used the shed as late as July, 1965. The ordinance does provide that if non-conforming use ceases for less than one year, a use of a similar classification can be brought in, or one of a stricter classifica- tion. In this case, any M-1 use could be conducted as long as the previous non- conforming use had not ceased to operate for over a year. Under Section 33.63, Mr. Lindberg quoted, the ordinance allows Mr. Muraoka to use this property for this particular use. Mr. Lindberg stated no further action was necessary by the Council. Member Adams asked if the Commission could possibly get the applicant to clean up this property. The applicant indicated his intent to do so. Director of Planning Warren indicated that the staff contemplates a change in this particular provision in the new zoning ordinance. City Attorney Lindberg stated further that the applicant had not filed an appeal on the advice of his attorney. -1- REZONING - PUBLIC HEARING: (Contld) Southwest Corner of Bonita Road and Otay Lakes Road - Interim C-1-D to Permanent C-1-D Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the property. He reviewed the matter stating it was continued from the previous meeting to allow more Commissioners to be present. The parcel contains 8½ acres interim-zoned C-1 as it was brought in from the County. A 150' x 150' corner of this lot has been purchased by Richfield Oil Company and a service station is proposed there sometime in the future. This being the time and place as advertised, the continued public hearing was opened. Mr. Lloyd Lee, the owner of the property, declared it was zoned C-1 by the County Planning Department in May, 1962. At this time, he gave additional right-of-way to the County for street purposes. When this was annexed to the City, he was promised that it would come in with the same zoning - C-1. When he received his notice, he paid no attention to the "interim" wording on it, because he was assured it would have the same permanent zoning. At a previous meeting, it was recommended for R-3-B-3-D zoning, but the Commission felt it should be C-1 and it had to be re- advertised. Mr. Lee stated that now, as he understands it, the Commission can approve only C-I-D permanent zoning or leave it interim-zoned. City Attorney Lindberg stated this was not correct; since R-3 was more restrictive than C-l, the assumption was that perhaps some people would object to the C-1 zoning whereas they would not to the R-3. However, although it was advertised for consider- ation to C-1-D zoning, the Commission could recommend and approve a more restrictive zoning. Member Johnson commented on the many hearings held on the General Plan which was adopted a year ago and asked the applicant whether he attended any of these meetings and objected to the recommended high density zoning for this particular area. Mr. Lee stated he did not attend any of the meetings, but did come to one Council hearing at which the General Plan map was on display and objected to the proposed use at that time. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Johnson stated he holds the same feeling - aside from the merits of the case, it was unusual to have a commitment on a matter, but in view of the fact that the General Plan does reflect R-3 use for this parcel of land and the staff has made a study and determined that there was sufficient commercial zoning in the area, he would still contend that the zoning be R-3 with a density control. Vice-Chairman Stewart declared that the people in the Sweetwater Valley included in this annexation were assured that the City would not change their zoning; that the Commission should not now change this because the General Plan denotes something else - they should let necessity do this. Mr. Stewart then discussed the related areas brought into the City which were zoned commercial after the annexation of this property. Member Vaden expressed agreement with Mr. Stewart's comments, but indicated concern over the overall effect on land use. Chairman Stevenson commented that he couldn't see how the City could possibly go to a land owner and ask him to bring in his land, and then give him a lesser zoning than -2- promised. Member Guyer agreed, adding that the Commission realizes there is more than sufficient commercial zoning in the area, but that they must remember that there was a prior commitment made on this property. Member Adams agreed stating that R-3 zoning is the most appropriate for the lot; however, a commitment was made and the Commission has no legal basis on which to rezone the property. He is changing his position in the matter. RESOLUTION NO. 377 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending MSC (Stewart-Vaden) to City Council the Permanent Zoning to C-1-D for Property Located at the Southwest Corner of Bonita Road and Otay Lakes Road Findings are as follows: At the time annexation of the area was processed, it was concluded that the existing County zoning pattern for the area was appropriate and permanent zoning in accordance with that earlier action is necessary at this time. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Stewart, Vaden, Adams, Guyer, and Stevenson NOES: Member Johnson ABSENT: None ACTION ON REQUEST of A. L. Reneau~ Jr. to Rezone Property at 825 Broadway from R-1 To C-2 Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan of the area stating this action was continued from the previous meeting. At the last meeting, the staff had brought in a recommendation for rezoning for the entire block; however, the "Star- News" failed to publish the notices for a public hearing, so consequently, this was put on the meeting of the i8th. The Director added that he discussed this with the applicant, and they agreed to a continuance of action to the 18th, also. MSUC (Guyer-dohnson) Action on rezoning at 825 Broadway be continued until the meeting of October 18. VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING: (Cont'.d) Dr. Albert Klu9 - C.V. Center - 360 "F" Street - Reduction in Required Parking The application was read in which a request was mede for permission to provide parking on a portion of the lot with the dimensions less than the minimum standards required for parking by the zoning ordinance. Applicant also requests reduction in parking requirements from 35 spaces to 16. This development will be a part of the existing shopping center. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, adjacent land use and zoning. He explained this construction would be on the existing railroad right-of-way of which the railroad is retaining ownership; the applicants are leasing this property from them. Director Warren explained there are now 175 parking spaces existing for the Center and the applicants are proposing to construct another building which will contain approximately 7,000 square feet of floor area; this would necessitate providing an additional 35 spaces. The City's requirement is for 43 feet of depth for access and the applicants have 40 feet, which does not meet the minimum requirement. Mr. Warren added that the applicants have proposed 16 additional spaces of which the City Traffic Engineer will approve only 10 spaces within the space provided. -3- This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared opened. Mr. Kaplan, attorney for the applicants, requested that the Director of Planning finish his comments first, and then he will present his case. Director Warren then presented a few alternate plans worked out by the Planning staff; in order to provide the minimum parking, the maximum floor area the applicants could construct would be 3600 square feet. This proposal was discussed with the applicants, but they had rejected it stating they cannot build anything less than the 7,000 square foot building they proposed because of economic reasons. Director Warren then discussed the parking in the Civic Center complex and the shortage of parking since the new State Employment Office came into this area. He declared that the standard for the City is minimum, and that the City finds itself on the bottom of the list in the County in parking space requirements. The applicants are proposing parking spaces that cannot be used properly; however, there may be alternatives that can be worked out. Member Johnson questioned whether this area would fall into any parking district. Director Warren stated it was not within a parking district boundary and that existing public lots were too far distant to serve this Center. Mr. Kaplan discussed the project stating Mr. Berenson was a licensed contractor, and the building he designed was the only feasible one that could be constructed on the strip. He stated that the developer can provide 16 parking spaces on the railroad right-of-way; there is room also for five additional spaces between the Donut Shop and the Ice Cream Shop, and also by reducing the width of the spaces in the front row along "F" Street, they can provide an additional five spaces. A survey of the parking in the Center revealed that approximately 56 % of the spaces were filled on an average. The average person parking here is one who parks for a short period of time, either to go to the grocery store, laundromat , etc. The proposed building will house shops similar to the existing ones. They fully realize that there will be high-rise apartment complex next to this site; however, they have been advised that these apartments will have more than adequate parking. In which case, they feel their proposal should have no bearing whatsoever on what will be taking place next to their property; his clients are ready to proceed now. Director Warren declared that it seems very important that all land available be developed to its best use, but it appears that these plans have been developed without any regard to the City's zoning requirements. Mr. Warren discussed their proposed parking, and the fact that there will be egress and ingress on Center Street. From a Planning standpoint, every use should provide its own parking. The Commission should not approve any plan that would require curb parking. As it now stands, the Center provides adequate parking as required by the City Code, and if the new development can provide more parl~ing, then the staff would approve it when it comes in. The spaces now in the Center are the minimum required. Dr. Albert Klug, the applicant, stated that economic feasibility goes along with any type of planning. They are providing the amount and type of parking they feel will go along with this type of development. They feel this is not detrimental as Dr. Klug added, "what is good for the community, is good for us." He further explained the reason for constructing this 7000 square foot building was that the land was leased from the railroad, and for this reason, the lenders insist on its showing a certain return. Dr. Klug asked the Commission to look at this project in conjunction with the entire shopping center ~ as one picture; he feels this will make a con- siderable difference. He also asked the Commission to note that the parking spaces existing in the Center are wider than that required by the City ordinance. -4- The purpose of a variance, he further added, was for each applicant to present his own case when he has a hardship, and to ask the Commission to make an exception. Dr. Klug again reiterated that they felt the parking was adequate, and if they built something with less parking, they would be only damaging themselves. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams declared that the City is looking forward continually to growth, and if they permit developments to come in with less parking today, they will find themselves very short tomorrow. He added that the percentage of 56 % for the parking spaces used at the Center, if such is an accurage figure, was good today, but how about 10 years from now? The Commission discussed the proposed parking spaces commenting that most of them could be used only by the employees working in this new building, as the spaces are quite remote from most of the shops. They also concurred that the Center Street egress and ingress could present a traffic problem. Director of Planning Warren explained the parking requirements called for in the City ordinance provide for both employee and customer parking. Perhaps by re- designing the parking for the whole center, the applicants could bring the spaces available within a margin that would be acceptable. Director Warren suggested the Commissioners continue the hearing and ask the applicants to study a whole new parking layout bringing in a new plan for the Commission's consideration. Mr. Kaplan again reviewed the fact that they could cut down on the stalls in front of the Center to the 8~ 6" width thus gaining several more spaces here. They feel they could come up with 26 of the required 35 spaces. He asked that the Commission consider this as a condition of approval. Chairman Stevenson stated the test would be the exceptional circumstances. Member Vaden declared the whole matter disturbed him; here the applicants were working with a 40 or 43 foot strip of property and doing everything they could to eliminate good planning. It was not proper and that the Commission should see evidence that an alternate parking plan would work before giving any approval. Member Adams indicated the Commission should not concede any parking spaces. Member Guyer stated he felt there was no basis for granting the variance when the Center as an integral unit is considered. MSUC (Guyer-Adams) Variance denied based on the following: 1. It would be too far below the standards of the ordinance since only 185 useable spaces could be adequately provided under the plan presented. 2. There would be an added traffic problem of egress and ingress at Center Street. 3. No unusual or exceptional circumstances about the property could be found, as delineated in the ordinance, that would justify granting the variance. AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING: (Cont'd) Proposed Ordinance Establishin~ Architectural Review Director of Planning Warren stated this was the fourth draft of the proposed ordinance. The Commission has held several continued hearings on it, plus two workshop sessions. This fourth draft reflects minor changes from the original draft. Director Warren then briefly reviewed the contents of the ordinance. This being the time and place as advertised, the continued public hearing was opened. Mr. Myron Dalseth, 114 Guava Avenue, building contractor, spoke in opposition to the ordinance particularly that section that states "the Board shall have the power to approve or disapprove plot plans and landscaping for such developments." Chairman Stevenson reminded Mr. Dalseth that this stipulation was already impc~ed in the "D" zone. Director Warren remarked that this might be directed toward all but single-residences, and the Commission might want to waive this requiren~nt. It may be possible to restrict this to all but single-family dwellings. Mr. Robert Miles, 392 I'EI' Street, stated he was not in favor of this ordinance, but that it looked "like we're going to get it anyway." He is against the "extreme latitude" that the Board will have, such as control over color, etc., and it would mean a considerable loss of time in having to appeal all these decisions. Mr. Frank Ferreira, 3715 Putter Drive, stated he strongly objected to this proposed ordinance; in essence, he felt the contractors should come in to the Board stating they have a tract of land, and let the Board tell them how to develop it. He added he would support the "D" zone, where necessary, but this ordinance is an intrusion into free enterprise on which this country was built. MW. Ferreira asked that the Commission consider giving the "other person" a chance - one that is not in the high-income bracket; he felt they have lost their objective in this proposed ordinance. He added that there was not one subdivision in the entire City that was objectionable; perhaps one, that was built on a hillside, was built without any regard to aesthetics. Mr. Ferrelra especially opposed the last para- graph on page 2, dealing with the Board's professional review of the plans and specifications as submitted; page 5, item 1, the proposed boundaries of the District; page 6, section 33.96, the time element involved in advertising such hearings - he felt it would involve an additional 6 months to have to go through these bodies. He asked that something be left up to the home-buyer; that the ordinance shouldn't have to tell him how to landscape his home, etc. City Attorney Lindberg clarified the District item, stating the Board would set up some definite standards to guide the developer coming into these areas. Mr. Ferrelra felt there should be more specifications in the ordinance, and that more emphasis should be given to the lower-income people trying to buy homes; a few dollars difference in the monthly payments is enough to disqualify a person in applying for a loan. Mr. Phil Creaser, builder, discussed what he termed the "outside influences" a builder must cope wi th: FHA, lenders, public, etc., without having to come to an Architectural Board also. He added he was afraid of the "specter" this Commission will have. Mr. Lloyd Lee, Center Street, declared the FHA has enough to say to the builders now, and they incur enough delay with this organization. Mr. Ralph Spaid, Princess Park Estates, Inc., remarked he agreed with every statement made in opposition tonight. He stated the City will not get any better homes if this ordinance is passed; instead, it will be killing one of their second largest industries. Mr. Lawrence Kuebler, 373 "E" Street, contractor, discussed the financial aspect of the situation, stating the builder invests a great deal of money into a project, and it should be up to him how he wants to spend it. Mr. Paul Yeager, 414 "J" Street, said, as he understood it, the builders would be coming to the Commission with their plans and it would be these plans that the Commission would act on and see that the builder conforms to them. He felt the Ordinance was a good thing; it would assure the City that the plans submitted by any contractor would be built exactly according to these plans; something that hasn't been done in the past. Mr. Vic Wulff, architect, spoke in favor of the ordinance stating he has as much to lose as any builder since he, too, will be governed by this Commission, but that he isn't opposed to the ordinance, and wonders why the builders are. He indicated they might have every reason to fear something that does not exist, and if it does exist, if it is improper. He added that there was not one contractor or builder in the City that is as good a designer or architect as he is a builder. Many of them would like to have good design values in their structures. Mr. Wulff declared there was not one really good tract in the entire City, not really good as compared to some other tracts in the country. Until they have tried this ar- chitectural control, and given it a chance, they shouldn't come in and fight it; they are actually fearing the things they don't see. Mr. Wulff suggested better definitions be written into the ordinance and let the builders see what exactly to expect. He then discussed FHA standards that have been mentioned several times. He stated these requirements were minimum, that FHA does not provide architectural control. The people buying homes should have a choice of good architectural design, and many contractors do not know what architectural design is. In many cases, many subdividers do not retain an architect; they retain draftsmen, and because of this, they do not know what architecture will do with their development. Mr. Creaser discussed the "D" zone process he recently experienced in another City in the County. They had to wait 6 months to get their plans approved and then these plans were almost exactly as they had submitted them in the first place. He is afraid this proposed Board would be able to require drawings "down to the last nail"; the ordinance empowers the Commission to require the builders to brin9 in final plans on everything before approval is given. Mr. Frank Ferreira, stated for the record, that he was a graduate architect, class of '56, and that Mr. Wulff's discussion is an example of what the builders can expect from the Architectural Board, if approved. Mr. Ferreira stated that many contractors do not use A.I.A.'s now, only A.I.B.D.'s. Director Warren remarked that from all the comments heard tonight, the Commission should decide if any of the chan9es they heard tonight should be incorporated into the ordinance. Perhaps what is needed is a working Committee of contractors to advise the staff and Commission in any further revision. Vice-Chairman Stewart stated this has been done, and this particular ordinance has been through so many committees and hearings that it has become "dog-eared". It is the intent of the ordinance to set up districts and they will establish the standards for that district. Director Warren, discussing the ordimnce, indicated that how specific such standards can be should be up to the Board, and to a certain degree, the Board can pinpoint more standards on which the developer can work. City Attorney Lindberg stated it does the City very little good to say that the ordinance can be flexible; standards must be established and some idea must be _ had on what w~ll go into a District, etc. This may be difficult in some areas, but not any more so than the "D" zone. This works well in the Bonita area, and the developers out there understand it. Mr. Lindberg stated they must take a look at the whole community and see what they want. Member Vaden remarked he could see nothing that he would add or detract from the proposed ordinance, and felt the Commission should take action on this 4th draft tonight, either for or against it. Vice-Chairman Stewart agreed adding that the ordinance was drawn at the request of the City Council and they subsequently sent it back to the Commission for resub~ mission. He added there was nothing new that he could see that has come before them in the last two hearings that he would suggest be changed. RESOLUTION NO. 378 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending (MSUC Vaden-Guyer) to City Council an Ordinance Amending Chapter 33 of the Chula Vista City Code by Repealing Sections 33.54.2 Through 33.54.5, and Renumbering Sections 33.90 and 33.91 to Sections 33.101 and 33.102 and Adding Thereto New Sections 33.90 Through 33.100 All Relating to the Establishment of Architectural Control in Certain Resl- denltal Zones in the City of Chula Vista Findings be as follows: 1. The ordinance is required to aid in the control of what is recognized as a - growing imbalance in the construction of low-cost, aesthetically displeasing homes. 2. A Mayor's Committee was set up to consider and study this problem, and it was their recommendatim that an Architectural Board of Review be created. STAFF REPORT - Signs for Bonita Plaza Shopping Center Director of Planning Warren stated a request has been received by a tenant of the Shopping Center to allow a sign. The original sign measured ~' x 6' and at the last m~etlng, the Commission took no action on the request directing the staff to meet wi th the applicant and developer and try to coma up with a sign that would be more compatible with the Center. The parapet, on which the sign will be erected is ~ feet high, and the Commission concurred that the sign should be approximately 2½ feet high in order that the sign would not obscure the shake shingles on the parapet. After meeting with the developer, and discussing the signs for his Center, no decision had been reached. The new sign, as proposed by the applicant, John Yavorsky, is 30" x 9' and 8" in depth. This is a plastic sign, interior illuminated, yellow background with blue lettering. Mr. Warren then discussed the signs in the Bonita Village shopping center, indicating that the same consistency in signs should be required for th~s particular Center. If every tenant that came into the Center. each with their own sign, it would ruin the character of the area and architectural style of the buildings. Director Warren cautioned the Commission that what they approve tonight would set the trend for all signs to go into this Center. Mr. Robert Helmuth, owner of the shopping center, declared that under the "D" zone, 50 square feet of sign area is allowed for each business; this particular sign would be one-half of what is allowed. He stated he does not want any fluorescent colors or any bright colors for the signs and would like to leave this to the approval of -8- the Planning Director. He agreed to the Commission restricting the size of the sign indicating that if a business came in that needed a large sign, he would be willing to come in and ask for Commission approval. Member Adams remarked that the signs for this Center should be coordinated with the signs in the adjacent shopping center; that some uniformity should be established. Director Warren indicated the signs for this Center should have been designed at the time the building was designed; it should have been designed by his architect. Vice-Chairman Stewart said he felt the size of the signs should be 2½' high on this 4~ parapet. Member Adams suggested the sign be erected at the very bottom of the parapet. Mr. Helmuth declared this would not be practical as there are shingles hanging down here and there would be nothing on which to attach the sign. He suggested at least a 6 inch margin. The Commission discussed the lighting of the sign and various other types of signs. MSUC (Stewart-Johnson) Approval of sign as submitted by John Yavorsky: sign measuring 30 inches high, 9 feet in length, 8 inches in depth, constructed of plastic material with interior illumination. The base of the sign to be set flush on the parapet, beginning at a point 6 inches from the bottom of the parapet; the sign to be perpendicular to the ground level. This sign is to set the trend for all future signs to be erected in this shopping center, and colors for all signs are to be approved by the Director of Planning. DISCUSSION - Proposed New Model Home for Princess Manor Subdivision Director of Planning Warren explained that sometime ago, a variance was granted to Princess Park Estates, Inc., for homes with less square footage than that required by the ordinance. In this case, the developer contemplates 4 new model homes, one of which will be a departure of what has been approved by this Commission. This model will contain 1146 square feet, 4 bedrooms, 2 bath, and 2 car garage; it will be a single-story structure. At this point, the subdivider does not know how many of these he contemplates on building, or at what location he plans to have these. In the original variance, approval was given to a 4 bedroom home containing 1240 square feet. Member Adams said he couldn't imagine a 4 bedroom home containing only 1146 square feet; that he visited the subdivision a short time ago and noticing the 3 bedroom homes that contained 1100 square feet thinking, at that time, what an extra 100 square feet would have helped. Vice-Chairman Stewart questioned the percentage of these homes that will go into the subdivision. Mr. Ralph Spaid, representing Princess Park Estates, Inc., declared he didn't have the exact number; what they are asking for tonight is permission to build this one model home; at a future date, they will be in with plans for how many of these they propose to build and where. There is a demand for this type of home whereby many people do not care if on or two of the bedrooms are quite small as they will be children's rooms. The Commission discussed the number of substandard homes built in this subdivision, and Mr. Spald assured the Commission they would not build over the percentage orig- inally approved by the Commission. '9- Chairman Stevenson questioned whether the Commission could legally approve this model home. City Attorney Lindberg stated they could as the original variance has already been granted, and what the Commission is doing now is just changing one of the models; it still fails in the provisions of the variance. Director Warren commented that any other homes the subdivider wants to build like this model, would have to have Commission approval. MSUC (Johnson-Vaden) Model home #4800 containing 1146 square feet be approved; additional quantities to be constructed shall be approved by the Commission in accordance with the conditions of the original variance. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Plans for Bank at Southwest Corner of Fig and "H'~ Street - 'ID" Zone Director of Planning Warren submitted an architectural rendering of the building and the location. He noted the accesses: one on Shasta and one on Fig Avenue. There will be no access into the Sears shopping center from Shasta Street. Originally, trees were to be planted at various points on the west side of this parking lot; however, these have been eliminated because Sears will be planting trees along this line. Director Warren then discussed the proposed sign, stating it measures 10 feet by 5 feet but that a variance must be requested in order to place it in the setback area. Mr. Victor Wulff, architect for the project, declared the drive out of Shasta Street has tremendous amount of significance for the cars coming in from "H" Street to go out on Shasta. The sign is the standard used by this bank: 10' x 5' and it will stand 25' high. Director Warren stated the staff has found the site plan and the building acceptable. MSUC (Adams-Johnson) Approval of building plans, including the type of sign pro- posed, for the bank building to be located at Fig and "HI' Street, as required under the provisions of the "D" zone. REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF VARIANCE - Frank Whittington - 280 "K" Street A letter was read from Mr. Whittington requesting a modification of his variance granted him on January 18, 1965. He requested that he be allowed a five foot setback on the northeast corner of the property at 280 "K" Street. Director Warren explained the original variance had a condition whereby the applicant was required to bu~ild a 6 foot high grape stake and masonry fence around the entire apartment complex project with the exception of the "K" Street frontage and the minimum access to Del Mar Avenue. A complaint from the neighbor adjacent to the fence was received by the office. Chairman Stevenson questioned whether the Commission had the right to modify the variance. City Attorney Lindberg explmlned that a variance was to allow a use with certain conditions attached and as long as those conditions do not affect the neighboring property owners, there would be no need to call another public hearing. Director Warren declared the fence follows the property line around the entire development except at this point where it departs 5 feet from the llne. -10- Chairman Stevenson remarked that as long as the applicant's property is fenced, whether he comes in a foot or two shouldn't matter. If the Commission is going to insist that the fence be put on the property line, they should so state in the conditions. Director Warren commented that logically, a fence should follow the property line. MSUC (Guyer-Johnson) Approval of modification of variance granted on January 18, 1965, Resolution No. 65-2, allowing a five foot setback for a six foot high fence on the northeast corner of the property located at 280 "K'~ Street. LETTER FROM PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Requesting Approval of Proposed Park Site A letter was read from Mrs. Vanitta Olinger, Chairman, Park and Recreation Commission, requesting approval of a park site (approximately 6½ acres) on the west side of Hilltop Drive at the junction of Telegraph Canyon Road. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the proposed park site. The property is now vacant and virtually undevelopable for single family use. The owners would like to sell it to theCity for park purposes. The staff would suggest that additlonal land south of this proposed site (3.85 acres) be in- cluded in the acquisition. The General Plan calls out more acreage for a park site in this location; however, because of recent development, that is now impossible. If the Commission approves this site with the recommended addition, it should go back to the Park and Recreation Commission for action and referral to the City Council. MSUC (G~¥er-Stewart) Approval of 6½ acre site on the west side of Hilltop Drive at the junction of Telegraph Canyon Road for a park site, with the recommendation that the Park & Recreation Commission investigate the inclusion of the 3.85 acres south of subject site adjacent to Hilltop Drive which presently lies vacant. The proposed park slte is in conformance with the General Plan. DISCUSSION - Proposed Ordinance Establishing Neighborhood Shopping Center Zone Director of Planning Warren stated the staff has waited to submit this proposed ordinance to the Commission for a long time. The Commission can discuss it and set it for hearing, if it is desired. Member Vaden commented on several points in the proposed ordinance: walls next to residential areas; the question of where the level of ground would be in connection to the fence height, etc. Mr. Warren commented that perhaps a workshop meeting should be held on this. This proposed ordinance was taken from the new zoning ordinance, which the staff changed to meet the needs. Director Warren indicated the workshop will be scheduled for sometime after the League Conference. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Vaden-Johnson) Meeting adjourn to October 18, 1965. Meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted,