Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1967/05/01 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA May 1, 1967 The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on the above date at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Guava Avenue, with the following members present: Guyer, York, Gregson, Hyde, Rice, and Adams. Absent Chairman Stewart(with prior notification). Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Assistant Planner Lee, Junior Planner Masciarelli, City Attorney Lindberg and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. In the absence of Chiarman Stewart, Vice-Chairman Guyer presided over the meeting~ APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Adams-Gregson) Approval of minutes of the meeting of April 17, 1967, as mailed. SUBDIVISION (Cont'd) - Windsor Park - Tentative Map Director of Planning Warren submitted the revised map of this pro- posed subdivision. He explained the location of this subdivision as at the northerly termini of Melrose and Myra Avenues and containing 64 single-family lots. Mr. Warren explained that, at the last meet- ing, a different concept of developing the easterly portion of the property was discussed which suggested double-frontage lots in order to take advantage of the view; however, the Commission continued the matter in order that the staff come up with the proper conditions which would assure the maintenance and proper planting of the slopes. After discussion with the subdivider and his representatives and en- gineers, several conditions were discussed. Mr. Warren then delineated and explained each of the conditions. Member York questioned item (d) whereby it was stated that "Lot 52 shall be indefinitely maintained" ..... Director Warren felt a time limit should be imposed on it. Member Gregson questioned item (c) whereby "the subdivider shall main- tain the slope plantings for a period of at least one year ..... "and wondered if the City would be liable for the maintenance after the period of one year. Director Warren pointed out that this particular property would be under private ownership and the owner would be liable for the maintenance. He added that the staff will be assured that there will be a proper planting plan here and that the plants are under way. City Attorney Lindberg explained that they will be presenting to the City Council requirements for higher level of maintenance for prop- erties of this type than has been done in the past. These slopes are subject to more restrictions and stringent regulations, especially the vacant lots, in order to keep the weeds, etc. down. He added that with this type of subdivision development, new development tech- niques will be introduced, and that in the future, some good sound planning and development may occur as a result of it. Mr. Bill Ansley, 90 E1 Rancho Vista, representing Windsor Park, stated that they w~ll cover the maintenance of these slopes in their cove- nants and deed restrictions. He added that they are in agreement with the conditions of approval as offered by the staff and Engineering Division. Member Adams questioned the enforcement of the deed restrictions. Mr. Ansley stated it would be worded subject to approval of the City Attorney. Each owner will be required to maintain his portion, and if they don't, then perhaps the subdivider or residents can have re- course against them. C~ty Attorney Lindberg explained that the City does not have any en- forcement of the covenants - the City's primary concern here is the initial planting and the requirement that slopes will be maintained to prevent erosion. The Commission discussed the length of time they would consider for Lot 52. Member Adams suggested 5 years. City Attorney Lindberg felt this was reasonable and suggested adding "or lesser period of time as conditions change which would no longer require such main- tenance''. Mr. Ansley asked if they would have to post a bond for this 5 year period~ Mr. Lindberg indicated they would, but added it would not have to be a substantial bond~ The Commission discussed this further and agreed that the time should be determined by the Director of Planning, should it be a lesser time than 5 years. MSUC ~Gregson-Hyde) Approval of tentative map of Windsor Park Subdi- vision subject to the following conditions: 1. Lots 52-64 shall conform to the following: a. All slopes shall be graded and planted (including ground- cover, shrubs and trees) in accordance with specifications on file in the Planning Department with the type of plant materi- als used on the slopes subject to the approval of the Director of Planning. b. Each lot shall be supplied with an individual sprinkler system for slope watering, the type and location of such system sub- 3ect to the approval of the Director of Planning. c. The subdivider shall maintain the slope plantings for a period of at least one year from the date of planting or until the City accepts all the improvements within the subdivision, whlchever occurs at the later date. Maintenance shall include watering, fertilizing, weeding, dead plant replacement, and litter removal. -2- d. Lot 52 shall be maintained by its owner for a period of five (5) years or until such lesser time, as determined by the Director of Planning, that conditions have changed which would no longer require such maintenance. A separate sprinkler sys- tem and water meter shall be provided for this parcel° Bonds shall be provided as necessary to assure proper plant- ing and maintenance of slopes~ The amount of bonds shall be determined prior to the filing of the final map of the first unit of the subdivision~ 2~ If feasible, the lot line between parcels 22 and 23 shall be radial to the centerline of the street, 3~ All public improvements shall be constructed subject to the appro- val of the City Engineer. 4. The method of transition of existing curb and sidewalk on Myra and Melrose Avenues just south of the subdivision boundary shall meet with the approval of the Engineering Division prior to submis- sion of the Improvement plans and final map for checking. Revisions of right-of-way may be required. 5. The grades on Melrose Avenue are subject to providing adequate sight distance, 6. The method and location of sewage disposal and the location of the lift station shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 7. The street section for the 35 foot right-of-way shall be revised to 36 feet, with sidewalk and a graded 2½ foot general utility ease- ment on both sides of the street. 8. The driveways of Lots 23 and 24 shall be constructed directly opposite each other or it will be necessary to construct a temporary cul-de-sac- 9. Drainage terraces shall be constructed in Lots 51, 52, 60, 61, 62, 63 and 64 and on off-site cuts and/or fills as required by the City Engineer. These drainage terraces shall be at least 6 feet in width and lined with 3 inches of Portland Cement Concrete or 2 inches of gunite. They shall have a minimum depth of 1 foot and a minimum grade of 2%. When dIscharging on natural ground, adequate protection from erosion shall be provided by rip rap. Request for Clarification of Conditions of Variance (Cont'd) - Paul Hook - 125 Corte Maria Director of Planning Warren explained that this has been before the Commission twice and involves frontage on an easement. The Commis- sion granted a variance to split the property in a manner to serve the properties with this easement. When it was necessary for the owner to s~gn an agreement for the improvements, there was a differ- ence of opinion as to what improvements were required and thus, it -3- was re~erred back to the staff and the Commission. Mr. Warren stated that a report and partial transcript of the tapes of the two original meetings were made and forwarded to the Commission. Based on the staff's review of the transcript, it appears that Mr. Hook will be required to install, in conjunction with the future subdi- vision to the south, full half-street with curb, gutter and sidewalk in ~ront of lots 2 and 3 and paving only adjacent to lot 1. In order to get the improvements for lot 1, two alternatives are available: (1) when the entire segment of Flower Street between Corte Maria and Hilltop Drive is provided, subject improvements could be required by the 1911 Block Act; and (2) the City Attorney believes that improve- ments could be required as part of a subdivision of the property to the south. Director Warren noted for the record that based on the staff's interpretation of the transcript, Mr. Hook was responsible for the followlng: (1~ Full half-street improvements adjacent to lots 2 and 3 as de- lineated on the attached plot; said improvements to include curb, gutter, sidewalk and paving at specifications approved by the City Engineer. (2) Paving only of that half-street adjacent to lot 1 at specifica- tions approved by the City Engineer. (3) That Mr~ Hook furnish the City with a bond in an amount suf- ficient to cover the cost of the above-mentioned improvements. City Attorney Lindberg commented that, while a great many things could be derlved from the transcript, going directly to the resolu- tion, the requirements for the half-street improvements, less side- walk, curb, and gutters, Ks the object which is clearly delineated on the resolution, and which Mr. Hook received a copy of -- this is adjacent to 1, 2 and 3~ Mr. Lindberg explained the present require- ment in the ordinance which covers the improvements of Lot 2 (im- provements of $5,000 or more). He added that as far as curb, gutter and sidewalk are concerned for lots 1 and 3, these could be derived by other methods - lot 3 when it is improved. Member Rice questioned whether the resolution, which could differ from what was said at the meeting, could supersede the intent at the meet- inga City Attorney Lindberg indicated that this was true - the reso- lution is a written memorandum of the intent of the Commission. D~rector Warren explained that the resolution was the result of the f~rst meeting and then the matter was again before the Commission for a deferral of the improvements and a requirement for temporary pav- ing, and it was at that time that the dlscussion of paving and curbs and gutters was discussed and this was not reflected in the letter~ There was no subsequent resolution prepared. Member York asked about the legality of getting curbs, gutter and sidewalk as a condition for granting the deferral~ In reading the transcript of the tapes and in his own mind, he has no doubt that there was an agreement there that curbs and gutters were going to be furnished at such time as Flower Street was extended~ -4- City Attorney Lindberg explained that at the time the deferral of im- provements was discussed, there was a consideration of curbs, gutter and sidewalks. At this point, he added, he isn't sure they reached an agreement with Mr~ Hook as to the street paving; that all they are now talking about ls the curbs, gutter and sidewalk ajacent to Lots 2 and 3. A bond, cash, or lien would have to be made to guarantee these ~mprovements. The Commission had to act to defer the improve- ments on Lot 2 since no building permit would be issued. As far as Lot 3 is concerned, the paving is the obligation of Mr. Hook to be undertaken at such time as the property to the south is developed or Lot 3 is developed or a 3 year period. Curbs and gutter on Lot 2 is required by ordinance if a building was going to go in there - this was a part of the total deferral on the improvements until such time as ~t was reasonably placed along with other improvements. As required by ordinance, a bond or lien must be imposed. Director Warren indicated that Mr. Hook was not aware of what has been determined, since the staff tried to phone Mr. Hook but could not, since no phone number was listed. The Commission discussed the requirements further, and Mr. Lindberg reiterated that the initial requirement was the pavement adjacent to Lots 1, 2 and 3 which was later deferred and in lieu thereof, Mr. Hook was allowed to place a temporary pavement on Lots 1 and 2 to pro- vide access to the point of existing development. There was no point · n paving in front of Lot 3 since there is nothing there; but at such time as the subdivision to the south comes into being or Lot 3 is developed, or the 3 year period which is subject to extension, would require Mr. Hook to participate in that development of the paving of Lots 1, 2 and 3~ This is in the resolution, and there can be no quarrel with that~ The question is whether or not there is a respon- sibility for curb, gutter and sidewalk on Lots 2 and 3, and for the deferral, a type of bond or lien that would be required. The "bone of contention" here is the terms set forth in the agreement for the deferral and also the type of bond to be imposed for the paving set forth ~n the resolution, and curb, gutter and sidewalk set forth in Lot 2. Director Warren declared that Lo~ 3 would have to be ~ncluded since the subdivision to the south could take place before construction on that lot. Mr. Lindberg indicated that there is no guarantee that these improvements will take place when construction of Lot 3 occurs. Member Adams commented that they could not hold the applicant respon- sible for improvements on a vacant lot. Director Warren explained that, technically, the applicant has become a subdivider s~nce he created these two lots, and the need for that portion of the street. He questioned what would happen if that lot were not improved and they were ready to go ahead with the street improvements. City At- torney stated this would then be put under the 1911 Block Act. Mr. Paul Hook, 127 Corte Maria, stated he expected to hear from Mr. Lindberg but realizes he was unable to call him. He still disagrees with the conditions the Commission wishes to impose on him; he does not go along w~th a bond or lien on this property. -5- Mr. Lindbe~g asked him about a covenant running with the land as far as the street improvement is concerned - that Mr. Hook does agree that he has the responsibility of putting in the half-street on Lots i, 2 and 3. Mr. Hook stated he agrees to paving it. Mr. Lindberg questioned his agreement to the specifications as ori- ginally set forth and deferred. Mr. Warren read this requirement: "The applicant shall be required to pave the entire length and width of the easement with 2" of hot-mix asphaltic concrete upon a prepared decomposed granite base 4" in thickness (or such less base as may be specified by the Division of Engineering based upon a C.B.R. deter- minat~on by a qualified laboratory and paid for by the applicant)." Mr Hook stated th~s was what he agreed to and he received a variance afte~ that to use just the hot oil spray. Mr. Lindberg asked if the applicant would agree to sign an agreement under the terms of the deferral that this would be done. Mr~ Hook stated he was under the impression that at the time this "hot-coat" would go down, it would be up to him to do Mr. Ll. ndberg affirmed the fact that at some time in the future the applicant would be putting in the ~mprovements as set forth. Mr. Hook answered that as a private driveway, yes, or at such time as the offer of dedication was exercised by the C~ty. At this time, he assumed the street would be paved and he would pay his share. Th~s would be done at such time as the property to the south was developed. Mr, Lindberg then questioned Mr. Hook as to the sidewalk, curb and gutter on his own lot - Lot 2; that he did not agree to put those in at all? Mr. Hook answered that he does not disagree that in fact, he does agree to put them in at such time as the s~creet is paved - as a street, not a driveway~ Mr~ Lindberg asked if he were willing to put up a bond for that - the sidewalk, curbs and gutter on h~s property (Lot 2) ~ Mr. Hook de- clared that he would not - not without first contacting his attorney. City At%orney Lindberg stated that the City has an ordinance that does require this separate and apart from the variance w~th one that was considered for deferral by the Commission, since obviously they did not want to require it at this time. Along wlth this, the ordinance required either a bond or a lien for that improvement. Mr Hook then asked for a continuance for 30 days ~n order that he may advise his attorney as to these details. Mr. L~ndberg asked ~f he could send a copy of the ordinance and the resolution to Mr. Hook's attorney. Mr. Hook answered in the affirma- 5~ve and requested that a copy of the m~nutes be forwarded also. He stated he would give the City Attorney the name of his attorney ~n the morning. Mr~ Delwin Floodberg, stating he was the contractor who built Mr. Hook's house, added that he has reviewed the agreement as set forth by the City. He contended that the City can not force Mr. Hook to put up a bond for $2,000 or to put in the curbs, gutter and sidewalk up a private driveway which is not a street. --6-- Mr. L]ndberg explained to Mr. Floodberq that he was referring to an agreement which they are no longer talking about now - that this is the purpose of this hearing. He then explained again the matter unde~ consideration~ Mr~ Warren commented that the Commission has not found that curb, gutter and s~dewalk are not required for Lot 3. Mr Floodberg indicated that the Commission granted the applicant a 3 year deferment and now they are attempting to "hurry the process up by requiring Mr. Hook to put up the money." Mr. Lindberg explained that a bond, lien, or some form of security would have to be posted as everyone does who gets a deferral. This was the agreement of the Commission and clearly stated in the trans- cript. Mr. Floodberg stated he and the applicant are discussing the develop- ment o~ Lot 3 and do not want this condition imposed on that parcel - that in essence, the City would be requiring Mr. Hook to "pay double." Mr. Llndberg stated no one is paying double - only paying that amount which is reasonable~ He added that if the Commission grants this 30 days continuance, and in this time, they cannot work out the problem of the terms as set forth, then it would be wise to take it to the Council and see what action they will take. He added that they are "going around in circles now." MSUC (York-Rice) Approval of continuance of 30 days. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING - 176-182 Fourth Avenue - W. E. and Helen F. Pratt - R-3 to C-1 The application was read in which a change of zone from R-3 to C-1 was requested for property at 176-182 Fourth Avenue and a change of setback from 30 feet to 5 feet. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the loca- tion, ad3acent land use and zoning. He referred to a report sent to the Commission whereby the staff recommended denial and presented several findings. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Paul M~ller, 350 E Street, relator, stated this request was not for the purpose of constructing a car wash for the adjacent service station as originally proposed. He added that most of the corners of major streets in the City are being used for commercial purposes. He then discussed the General Plan and stated he could see no con- flict w~th this Plant The present use on the corner is C-2 and they are contemplating on a C-1 enterprise here which should fit right in. Mr. Miller added that he has had any number of people interested in this location for a commercial venture. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed, Mr, Hummell, owner of property at 164 Fourth Avenue, felt the whole block should be rezoned, rather than spot zone a couple of lots~ He opposed the rezoning on the grounds that it would leave the other 4 homes on this street in a precarious position, Member Rlce commented that the General Plan projects this area for maximum density residential, that it is well suited for R-3 develop- ment, both in this block and any other block running on Fourth Avenue between C and E Street~ He discussed the request denied by the Com- mission for the corner of Fourth and "D" for the same reason. Mr. Rice added that it could lead to a mixture of commercial and R-3 zoning an a location which would be considered poor practice, and not suited for that type of development~ He is strongly against changing this ~nto a commercial development at this tame. Member ADams agreed, stating further that there is a very good pattern of multiple-family development started on Fourth Avenue - he is against any commercial interrupting this. Mr. Adams added that he feels there is plenty of commercially zoned land in the City that could be used; rezoning this particular parcel would start a precedent here~ MSUC {Adams-Rice) Denial of the request based on the following reasons: 1 Except for corners at various major intersections, no commercial zoning exists on Fourth Avenue, south of "C" Street. The General Plan designates high density residential uses for this area~ 3. The Commission recently denied a request for a conditional use permit to locate a medical office at Fourth and "D", fearing that approval would stimulate other requests for commercial uses on Fourth Aven~e~ 4 Approval of th~s request would set a precedent for other similar requests on Fourth Avenue and could constitute the flrst step in the strap zoning of Fourth Avenue - the adverse effects of strip zoning need hardly be pointed out to the Commission~ 5. This request appears to be based on the outdated front foot con- cept of property valuation on arterial streets the price of the land becomes inflated to the point that at is too expensive for residential development. If this condition does an fact exist, it is not the City's responsibility to rectify the situa- tion w~th unwarranted commercial zoning. The fact %hat a street has a high traffic count does not warrant rezonlng the street commercially. The preponderance of high quality multiple-family development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property, all with Fourth Avenue frontage, indicates that arterials are good locations for apartment developments. The applicant was advised of his right of appeal. -8- PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Chula Vista Church of Nazarene - 346 "L" Street Request to Construct New Sanctuary The application was read in which a request was made for permission to construct a sanctuary in front of existing education building which will have a ~otal seating capacity of 480 persons. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan and elevation show- ing the location and contemplated construction of the addition. He referred to the staff's report to the Commission in which the staff recommended approval based on two conditions. Referring to the con- dition for landscaping, he noted that their plans are now complete and the staff does not wish to delay the process, but have found that, on occasion, once the buildings are approved, it is difficult to get landscaping. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Frank C. Watkins, President of the Church, stated they agree 100 per cent with the conditions as suggested by the Director of Planning. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. MSUC (Hyde-Gregson) Approval of request subject to the following con- ditions: lc The entire parking area shall be paved with 2" of asphaltic con- crete on a base as specified by the City Engineer, and each parking space shall be striped. 2. Landscaping plans shall be prepared and submitted to the Director of Planning for approval prior to framing inspection by the Build- ing Department. Such landscaping shall be accomplished before occupancy of the building. Findings be as follows: a. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood or the community. The Church provides a necessary and desirable service to the area and the City~ b. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. This use is already being conducted on the property with no apparent detriment to the area in which it is located. -9- c~ That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and con- ditions specifaed in the Code for such use. The plans as submitted and the conditions imposed would result an the compliance of all applicable Code regulations. d. That the granting of this conditional use will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. The General Plan would not be affected by this proposal. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - Donna M. McKee, 930 Cuyamaca Avenue - Height Variance The applacation was read in which a request was made for an increase in the heaght of an existing fence from 3½ feet to 6 feet for the purpose of enclosing a swimming pool. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan notlng the location and adjacent land use. He explained that a 20 foot setback was re- quired by ordinance for a 6 foot high fence - this fence is located 15 feet from the property line on Cuyamaca. Mr. Warren then pointed out that this property actually has two 20' setbacks since it is a corner lot~ There is quite a grade at the end of this particular lot~ Director Warren then commented that the staff recommends appro- val based on the condition that some form of landscaping be maintained outside the fence area~ Thls being the tame and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened, Mr~ Thomas Fitzgerald, 5428 Elgin Street, San Diego, stated he was speaking in behalf of Mrs. McKee. He explained the reason for the fence being constructed there was an error made by the fence com- pany. This was dascovered by the Building Inspector. Mr. Fitzgerald declared that the area in front of the fence would be landscaped with some ground cover~ There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Race felt the "lesser of two evils" would be to leave the high fence around the pool. Also, there is a 15' setback across the street and thas property owner has to maintain two 20' setbacks on two st£eets. Since it is on a bluff, there are no restrictaons as to the fence being in the 5' setback; however, it should be conditaoned upon the maintenance of the fence. A large redwood fence can become shabby in time if not cared for~ City Attorney Landberg felt this would be difficult to enforce. The ordinance states that the fence has to be "child-proof." -10- Member Adams felt this situation was different from those that are illegal to begin with and then come in asking for a variance to rec- tify it. This appears to be an honest mistake, and if the property owner knew this, he could have come in for a variance and easily obtained approval since a 20 foot setback under such conditions is now considered obsolete. Therefore, Mr. Adams continued, the Com- mission should v~ew th~s with understanding and grant this variance. Member Adams further stated that the Council recently passed an ordi- nance for specific requirements for a swimming pool fence. He sug- gested that ~n the future, whenever anyone applied for a building permit for such, they should show on their plot plan, the shape and size of pool, fencing, etc. MSUC ~York-Hyde) Approval of variance subject to the following condi- tions: That some landscaping occur at the outside base of the fence and that the remaining portion of the front yard be planted with grass or groundcover and be permanently maintained. Findings be as follows: a. That the strict application of the zoning regulations or require- ments would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hard- ships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the regu- lations. The fence could be reduced to 3½' in height in this area, but all privacy would be lost. b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone or neighborhood. This is a corner lot with two (2) 20' setbacks which is in ex- cess of the normal requirements. The lot directly south has a 15' setback on Cuyamaca. ¢. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detri- mental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improve- ments in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located. The fence will not be a detriment to passing motorists because the fence is actually 27' from the curb and over 30' from Donahue. d~ That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the ob- jectives of the General Plan. The use in no way conflicts with the General Plan. -11- PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - Raitt, Vance and Burkhart, 429-435 "D" S~reet - Front Yard Setback Reduction The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction of front yard setback as follows: 4' for the construction of two s~airways and 2' for an architectural projection in conjunction with a proposed 35-unit apartment complex~ Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, zoning, and adjacent land use. He explained the request as proposing two separate stairways - approximately 46' long - to project 4' into the front yardr Mr, Warren submitted an elevation of the proposed building showing also an architectural feature which will project over each driveway 2' into the front setback. He stated that the staff recommends approval based on the conditions of landscaping, sign approval and submission of f~nal plans. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened Mr. Lee Raztt, one of the owners, briefly discussed the project, and stated he ~s ~n agreement with the conditions. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Hyde felt this was a reasonable request. Member Race agreed, adding that a 4' overhang is permitted by ordinance an some sztuations; there should be no problem w~th this request° MSUC (Gregson-Adams) Approval of variance subject to the following conditions: 1 A landscape plan for the front yard area (including the parkway) shall be submitted to the Director of Planning for approval. Paving the parkway with concrete may be substituted for park- way landscaping, if tree wells are provided and street trees aze planted. 2. The location and size of all signs shall be approved by the Plan- ning D~rector. 3. £~nal plans shall be submitted to the Planning staff indicating an acceptable enclosed trash area~ F~ndings be as follows: a~ That the strict application of the zoning regulations or require- ments wo~ld result in partacular difficultIes or unnecessary hard- ships ~ncons~stent with the general purpose and intent of the regula- tions. The redesign of the building would necessitate the deletion of the architectural features and patio areas in the front. The small amount of stairway pro3ection is similar to a fire escape which zs allowed. -12- b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone or neighborhood. The property drops off into a canyon at the north, requiring the major portion of construction to be placed as close to "D" Street as possible. c. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located. The proposed stairways are open so that they will not block the view of adjoining property. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the ob- jectives of the General Plan. The General Plan is not affected by this request. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - Albert J. Gibbons, 9 Second Avenue - Setback Reductions The application was read in which a request was made for a reduc- tion in front yard setback from 30' to 19' for the purpose of constructing a single-family dwelling. Director of Planning sub- mitted a plot plan noting the location. He stated the lot measured 83' wide x 116' in length, and slopes downward quite steeply in the back. For this reason, the applicant is requesting a front yard setback reduction from 30' to 19'. The property has no level land and drops 40 feet in its 116~ length - or a 34% slope. Mr. Warren then discussed the possible need for additional right- of-way on the east side of Second Avenue from "D" Street north to 30th Street at some future date, according to the Engineering Department. It is presumed that the right-of-way will be 80' and if this full dedication were made, it would situate the proposed house 3' from the street right-of-way or 43' from the center line of Second Avenue. The majority of the homes on this street are observing the established setback; however, this property has problems with topography. Member York noted that a 30 foot setback was unusual and ques- tioned whether this was established with the idea in mind that the street would be widened here someday. Director Warren commented that the properties in this area were sparcely developed, and many streets in the older part of the City have this setback. It simply hasn't been changed because there has been no demand for it. Member Rlce asked about the amount of level land on the parcel. -13- Mr. Warren indicated that there is a slight leveling in front - there is no real level land to build a house on unless the appli- cant proposes to have a split-level home. Member Gregson questioned whether the City would become involved in any way when the street is eventually widened and the home is 3' from the ~lght-of-way. Mr. Warren indicated the City would not, since the house setback would then become a non-conforming situation created by the City by widening of the street. Mr~ Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, discussed the future widening of the street noting it may be 64' curb to curb plus the sidewalks. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr~ Albert Gibbons, the applicant, discussed the topography of the ~arcel and commented that to put in a street here, the engineers would have to put in about 30' of fill. Mr. Pete DeGraff, 666 Del Mar Avenue, pointed out the terrific amount of traffic on Edgemere Avenue, stating the southerly route for these cars would either have to go by First or Second Avenue. The Engineers prefer S~cond Avenue, although his preference would be First Avenue. In this respect, Second Avenue would definitely have to be widened. Mr~ Delw~n Floodberg, 456 Casselman, builder, stated that he looked at this particular parcel of land over many times trying to figure out the problems confronting it. All the property to the north, from Shirley Street on, falls into a canyon. It would be an engi- neering feat to widen this street to carry traffic. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Mr. Howard Gesley stated they are certain that Second Avenue, some- day, w~ll be w~dened up to C Street. From C Street on, it will be widened, but he cannot say for certain which way it w~ll go. As far as the applicant is concerned, it would be to his advantage to move his home back 11 feet and not be given a reduction in setback, as the widenlng of the street will take place on the east side of Second Avenue. In answer to Member York's ±nqulry, Mr. Gibbons stated his house w~ll have a basement and the living quarters will be upstairs or level with the street. The straight-in garage will be level with the street. Member Adams felt this was not an impossible situation if the house will be 3' from the property line with another 8' of level land there. I~ the Commission did not grant this man a variance, on the grounds that they wish to save the land for the future widening of Second Avenue would be both illegal and unethical~ -14- City Attorney Lindberg asked that before action is taken on this matter, that the Commission get a statement from the applicant that he fully understands what will happen to his property when and if that street is widened, and that he does not find this eventuality undesirable or detrimental to his property. Mr~ Gibbons declared he did understand the problem - that he was a contractor himself, and can see no problem with it. Many wonder how anyone could put a house on this property - he can state that he can put a house here~ He reiterated that he fully understands all the problems connected with this parcel of land. MSUC (Adams-Gregson) Approval of variance. Findings be as follows: a. That the strict application of the zoning regulations or require- ments would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hard- ships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the regu- lations: The property slopes away from Second Avenue at a 34% grade leaving no level property to build on. Any unnecessary set- back requirements would further complicate any building on the property~ b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions appli- cable to the property involved or to the intended use or develop- ment of the property that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone or neighborhood. The property directly across Second Avenue enjoys a 20' setback. All the other properties on the east side of Second have enough level land to construct a house; however, this is not the case of the lot in question which slopes immediately away from the street. c. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detri- mental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improve- ments in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located. Properties both to the west and further to the south enjoy setbacks of 20' and 25' respectively. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan,~ The General Plan is not affected by this request. The City Attorney asked that a transcript of this matter be made and filed with the Division of Engineering to be referred to at the time the street will be widened. The Commission so directed~ -15- PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - Hardin & Lola Gordon - 561 Roosevelt Street - R-3 Use in R-2 Zone The application was read in which a request was made for permission tc construct a triplex at the rear of the property. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the loca- tion, adjacent land use, and zoning. The applicants are planning to utilize the dedicated alley at the rear of the property for access to their required parking area~ Presently, the requirement is for all access and on-site parking to be paved; however, this alley is not paved. The City has no requirements for alley improve- ments on an individual bases~ Mr~ Warren then read the recommen- dations of the staff for approval~ Mr~ Kenneth Lee, Assistant Planner, discussed the layout of the property and stated that the access to the parking as proposed is satisfactory to the Traffic Engineer. Mr. Lee reiterated that the building could be moved to the south and connected to the ex- isting house; however, it was felt that the open space which will be provided here is much more pleasing and that parking access would not be a problem. The Commission discussed the number of parking spaces to be pro- v.~ded~ Mr. Warren indicated that 6 spaces will be provided, one space of which is for the existing dwelling. Mr~ Lee then discussed the use of alleys, commenting that more and more of them will be used in the future and that something should be done to promote improvement of these alleys. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened~ Mrs. Lola Gordon, 676 M~ssion Court, the applicant, stated she agrees to the stipulations as delineated by the Planning Director. She also agrees to pave her portion of the alley, when directed to do so; hcwever, she prefers not to do so at this particular time. City Attorney Lindberg stated that, eventually, the paving of the alley will take place under the 1911 Act. He asked if he could get a letter of waiver, which his office will prepare, waiving any protests to the i911 Act which the applicants will s±gn~ Member Gregson commented about the alley and felt there was no need to have ~t paved at this time. Member York questioned whether there was a condition whereby as property owners develop ad3acent to an alley, they would be re- quired to pave their portion of it~ City Attorney Lindberg noted that this was under discussion at the present time to extend the ordinance to cover sidewalks and curbs to encompass alleys. This would include only one-half an alley and · t is not always going to be feasible to acquire the improvements based upon development of property when they are talking about -16- these alleys, This ordinance will be brought in shortly for con- slderatlon, since an alley is in the same category as sidewalks and should serve primarily to benefit the particular property owner and it is not used by the public to any great extent. Presently, Mr. Lindberg added, they are considering the 1911 Act for a number of alleys and this will probably be the prevalent means by which the City acquires alley paving. The Con~ission discussed paving the alley whereby each property owner would pave his section at the time of development. Member York compared this to the alley which is partially paved in back of the First National Bank and Taco Bell off H Street which he consider s a 'very undesirable situation. MSUC (Hyde-York) Variance be approved subject to the following: Existing parking space and access to same be paved subject to our existing s~andards. 2, A landscape plan be submitted for the site and the parkway area~ (Note: m~n~mum of one street tree planted - 15-25 gal.) 3. The ex~st~ng telephone pole and stringer in the alley be re- located to coincide with west property line to avoid a con- fl~ct with the proposed parking spaces° 4~ A trash storage area shall be shown on the final plans subject to staff approval. 5. The applicants will sign an agreement, prepared by the City Attorney, attesting to the fact that they did state at the public hearing, that they will not protest in paying their share of the paving of the ad3acent alley at such time in the future as an improvement project is approved by the City. Findings be as follows: a. That the strict application of the zoning regulations or re- quirements would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the regulations. The General Plan calls for high density building use in this area. The use proposed is less than that projected by the Plan. Rezoning of the entire area at this time would be difficult because of isolated ob3ections. b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions appli- cable to the property involved or to the intended use or develop- ment of the property that do not apply generally to other prop- erty in the same zone or neighborhoods The ad3acent properties to the north and east have existing multi-family developments existing. It is not feasible to rezone one lot s~nce a ma3or revision is forthcoming in the zoning ordinance, -17- c~ That the granting of a variance will not be materially detri- mental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improve- ments in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located. There are other multiple developments in the area - this will be comparable. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan calls for high density residential use in the area~ SUBDIVISION - Flair, Unit No. 2 - Final Map Director of Planning Warren submitted the final map noting the lo- cation as north of Orange Avenue, east of Princess Manor Unit ~4 and will be an extension of Oleander Avenue. The subdivision con- tains 50 lots and the staff would recommend approval based on two conditions. Mr, Warren added that the map is in conformance with the tentative map. MSUC (Gregson-Hyde) Recommend approval of final map subject to the following conditions: 1, The final map shall not be submitted for Council action until all fees are paid and all necessary bonds, deeds, slope rights and easements as required by the City Engineer have been de- livered to the City~ 2. The small parcel which has been deleted from the subdivision south of Lot 79 and east of Lantana Avenue shall be deeded to the adjacent property owner to the east. TO Be Set for Hearing - Ordlnance Amending Section 33.51 of the Zoning Ordinance, Relating to Parking in Front Yard Setback in Residential Zones Dlrector of Planning Warren explained the amendment, as proposed. The present ordinance is vaguely written and pertains to parking "spaces" only, The staff is of the opinion that parking spaces and direct access to these spaces should be behind the setback area. This new ordi- nance will require that, except for driveways leading to parking areas, all required front setback areas should be reserved for landscaping, MSUC ~Rice-Hydei Thls matter be set for hearing for the meeting of May 15, -18- ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Third Draft of Zoning Ordinance Director of Planning Warren stated that only enough copies of this draft were printed for Commission and Council distribution and not for public distribution since there will be a number of changes made. Prior to Mr. Stewart's leaving town, he felt the Commission would not want these distributed, and the staff agreed. However, Mr~ Warren added, it might be desirable to distribute the few copies remaining in order to prevent any air of mystery around it, as long as these people are aware that there will be changes. Member Yo3£k suggested putting them out on a loan basis~ Mr. Warren indicated that these few books could be sold to them; there are about 6 copies left. Member Hyde felt it would be good public relations to make them available. The CommIssion discussed the cost and felt it should be up to the staff to decide. MUSC (Rice-Gregson) Staff directed to sell the remaining zoning books at whatever cost deemed appropriate. Joint Council-Commission Meetings Director Warren dIscussed the date of the next meeting, indicat- ing that the Commission had decided on Wednesday night - changing the time from 7 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. At the Council meeting the other night, they scheduled this meeting for Thursday evening. There is some confusion here. The Commission agreed that it should be Wednesday evening. City Attorney Lindberg stated that this is a Council meeting and the time and date should be straightened out by them at their meeting Tuesday evening. Mr. Warren informed the Commission that he would call them as to the exact date~ -19- Commission Resolutions Director of Planning Warren discussed the process for preparing resolutions and getting them properly worded. He explained that presently the resolutions are prepared based on the minutes, and distributed without signature~ Sometime following the meeting, the Chairman comes in and signs the originals. Mr~ Warren dis- cussed the method used by the City of E1 Cajon whereby action is taken at one meeting, and the meeting following, the resolutions are the f~rst thing on the agenda to be approved. Member Adams ~elt they did not have any problems with the resolu- tions to warrent this type of procedure. Member York felt this procedure would have less chance of minin- terpretation. The resolutions can be drafted and mailed sometime during the first week of the meeting, and if there are no comments from any of the Commissioners, then the resolution would become automatically approved. If any objections are voiced, then the resolution can come back to the Commission meeting. City Attorney Llndberg commented that in the cases of variances and conditional use permits, they do not become final for 10 days following the date of resolution. In most cases, it would give the Commission enough time to review them. If there was a dis- crepancy in the conditions, the Commissioner could notify the staff who ~n turn would notify the applicant. As for Mr. Hook's variance, what was written into the resolution will have to be binding. Mr. Lindberg noted that only 3 of the original members who reviewed this case are presently on the Commission to verify what happened. Director Warren indicated that this would involve a change in pro- cedure of the ordinance, and the staff will make a study of this before offering it for adoption~ ADJOURNMENT MSUC (York-Hyde~ Meeting adjourned to the workshop meeting of May 3, 1967 at 7:00 p,m, Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p,m. Respectfully submitted, e M. Fulasz v Secretary