Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1967/04/17 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF Chula Vista, California April 17, 1967 The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commisszon 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: Stewart, York, Hyde, Gregson, Rice, Adams, and Guyer. Absent: None. Also present: Dzrector of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, Planning Draftsman Irish, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. STATEMENT The Secretary hereby states that she did post within 24 hours of ad- journment, as required by law, the order for the adjourned meeting of April 3, 1967. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC(Adams-Gregson) Approval of the minutes of April 3, 1967, as mailed~ PUBLIC HEARING (Cont'd) - Proposed C-V Zone and Site Plan Control Ordinances Director of Planning noted that this matter has been before the Com- mission several times and has been continued at the request of in- terested parties in the audience. Mr. Warren explained that there are two ordinances in this item: the C-V District serving the needs of the tourists and involving areas that would house service stations, motels, restaurants, etc. It would place control over lot coverage, szgns, etc. The other ordinance covers site plan and architectural control for the C-1 and C-2 zones. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearmng was opened~ Mr~ Frank E. Ferreira, 3715 Putter Drive, Bonita, asked that this C-V zone be deferred because there was no need for it. He stated that there was only one possible area for the proposed zone in the City limzts on property he owns and he is not requesting this zoning~ There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams felt the Commission should take action on this matter tonight - it has been postponed three times. It would be of benefit to the community as a whole, and nothing has been presented to the Commission that would negate that consideration. No substantial ob3ec~zons were heard from the business community, from the developers or the builders - only a small minority of the community voiced any objection. This ordinance should be recommended to the Council for adoption. These same comments apply to the site plan ordinance also. Member Guyer remarked that he agreed that this C-V zone appears to be only applicable to the Bonata Road property at the 805 Freeway Inter- change~ Member York declared that based on the General Plan, it calls for a timzted area for this C-V zone, and further no emergency for this ordinance exists. In the absence of adopting the entire proposed new zoning ordinance, he can see no reason to adopt this ordinance at this time just to get it on the books. Chamrman Stewart commented that perhaps at this time; there is no emergency for it; however, he does not agree that the place shown on the General Plan as the only area where they can use this ordi- nance. There could be many other areas. He declared that the Com- mission should take action on this matter and recommend to the Council that it be adopted - the Commission has made every suggested change an the text of the ordinance. Director Warren stated it was important that the Commission take action on thas tonight - they can recommend adoption as written, with modzfacatzon, or file at and bring it back with the new zoning ordanance~ By separating it from the new zoning ordinance it makes a great deal of sense. He added that the Commission must be careful about applyang it to new areas in the City. Adoption of the ordi- nance as urgent at this time because one of the interchanges in- volved as becoming a part of Chula Vista, and another annexation is be~ngprocessed presently for whach the owners will request this zone. This is a special zone, and the Caty should have it available; there as no other zone, presently, wath these characteristics. Mr. Warren poanted out that thas zone is not beang applaed to property tonight; thls will be the subject of another public hearing after studies have been conducted. He then discussed the site plan ordi- nance noning that at the workshop meetings, the Commission had dis- cussed the possibilaty of eliminating the architectural control provisaon. Chaarman Stewart affarmed this, commenting that it would become so anvolved that special people may be needed to give the Commission some guidance. Directoz Warren samd he can see great value in having this architec- tuzal control in the commercial zones. It is difficult, however, to admanaster this. Judging from some of the development the City gets, he feels there as a need for some type of archatectural re- view~ Without an architectural board, it would be too difficult to admanlster; the staff would recommend that zt be deleted. The Chaarman took a poll of the members and they all agreed to delete this archatectural control from the ordinance~ -2- Chairman Stewart declared it was desirable to leave it in; however, the problems of administering it would become to, involved. MSUC (Guyer-Rlce) Resolution of the City Planning Commission recom- RESOLUTION NO.464 mending to City Council the adoption of the C-V (Visitor-Commercial) zone Findings be as follows: The General Plan suggests at least five areas with tourist- commercial potential, and there will be other appropriate areas as development trends are further delineated. b~ There is an urgency for the adoption of this Ordinance in order to preserve for tourist facilities, those areas so designated on the General Plan and to accommodate the prezoning requests of certain property owners. c. Without this C-V zone, which preserves a tourist-oriented com- plex, the C-1 and C-2 classifications, which permit a broader range of uses, must be applied and could destroy the tourist potential of the areas involved. MSUC (Guyer-Rice) Resolution of the City Planning Commission recom- RESOLUTION NO. 465 mending to City Council the adoption of an ordi- nance providing for certain development stand- ards in commercial zones. Findings be as follows: a. This proposed ordinance would set up standards for parking, height of fences and walls, landscaping, and prevention of ob- jectionable noises for commercial recreational facilities; location and lighting standards for golf driving ranges; and minimum site area and minimum square feet for sleeping units for motels or motor hotels. b. The ordinance will also provide for site plan approval of all uses as provided in Section 33.54.6 through 33.54.10 of the Zoning Ordinance. c. The proposed ordinance will assure more compatibility with adjacent uses and will aid in smoother traffic flow between private property and public streets. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Temple Beth Sholom - 208 Madrona - Addition to Church The application was read in which a request was made to enlarge the synagogue by constructing a vestibule, rest rooms and class- rooms. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan, noting the loca- tion and the proposed addition. The property is presently split w~th R-1 and R-3 zoning. No offstreet parking has been provided for this church; however, in their plans, it appears that it would not -3- create any additional need for parking. Mr. Warren noted that they have reached their maximum lot coverage, and in some cases, exceeded it depending on how you interpret the ordinance. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Martin Green, past President of the Church, 63 Whitney Street, discussed the proposed addition and the need for such construction. Chairman Stewart explained the lot coverage and asked Mr. Green if there will be any more additions contemplated in the future. Mr. Green declared they had no increase in the congregation, so there was no reason to add anything else. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member York asked if the residents in the area were notified. Mr. Warren stated they were. Member York favored granting the permit since there appeared to be no appreciable parking problems. The Commission discussed the setback line and the proposed construc- tion. Mr. Warren remarked that the applicant will be observing the setback line, since he is not requesting a reduction in setback. MSUC (Hyde-Gregson) Approval of conditional use permit. Findings are as follows: a. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contri- bute to the general wellbeing of the neighborhood or the community. The use is already located on the property; the applicant merely wishes to make it a more functional and efficient facility by the addition of the proposed rooms. 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. The use will have little effect on the area since some classroom facilities are already located on the property without any apparent conflict with the surrounding area. c. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and con- ditions specified in the Code for such use. Any additions to the existing facilities are reviewed by the Commission to insure compliance with regulations and conditions specified in the Ordinance for such use. Any conditions imposed by the Commission will be enforced by the staff. --4-- 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 will not be affected by this proposal. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - Diversified Enterprises - Woodlawn and Oaklawn Avenues South of H Street - Reduction in Setbacks The application was read in which a request was made for reduction in front yard setback as follows: on Oaklawn Avenue from 20' to 15' and on Woodlawn Avenue from 25' to 12' and 2' at the cul-de-sac, for the purpose of constructing an apartment complex of 62 units. Also, a request for a further reduction in front setback to 3' on Woodlawn Avenue for parking. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the loca- tion, adjacent land use and zoning. He then submitted an enlarged plot plan of the location of the proposed buildings and the parking layout, noting the requested reductions in setback. He noted that the applicants could construct the apartments without a variance, depending on the design of the complex; however, it appears that an adjustment in setbacks will produce a better plan. Mr. Warren then noted a petition of protest and a few letters that were received by the staff which were copied and sent to the Commission. He added that the applicant has not shown any landscaping details, and asked that any approval be subject to their landscaping plans being ap- proved by the staff. Chairman Stewart inquired about the parking spaces. Mr. Warren in- formed him that the number of spaces meets the minimum required by ordinance~ The Commission discussed the concept of parking in the front setback. Director Warren noted that it has been difficult in the past to regulate this - there was no effective way except perhaps by screen- lng it with landscaping. He then discussed the setback which pre- sently exists at 25' and mentioned that this is rather severe, and the applicant has pointed out that even though it is a public street, it is a private cul-de-sac serving only their properties. Mr. Warren then referred to the letters of protests noting that theprotestants suggested the construction of a masonry wall adjacent to their homes. Member York noted that the building would be set back 12' and parking 3' with no screening in front of the parking where it will be 3' They show some landscaping, but screening might not be possible be- cause of the traffic ordinance. Mr. Warren again reiterated the reduction in setback requests. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. -5- "i: Norman Seltzer, one of the owners of the property, discussed the ~ :oposed pians He commented that his arch:tect was present to .~u~__~on_ lie agreed that approval o[ the variance should ~.~ d ,= uo0d::~on to the approval of a ±andscap',_ng plan. Mr~ Seltzer ~ta~t:J*-h.~.' r they have 78,000 square ~eet of land area and thelr .~::ze:ag~: is approximateiy 35% of the lot. They will provide 93 park- n~]~' .... ~a :~~'~ fo~ the 62 units. He then spoke of the great need for ~?~.~: ~[;~tme~.~s: the location, the proximity to Rohr; the need, :h-- af~artments across the street with no vacancy, etc. He added that ~i~p~, ~il buffer the ad3acenh property with suitable planting~ Mr. S ;l~ze~ declat-ed that their needs would be better served by maln- ~,~n:ng ~he ]~ to 1 parking rat:o, rather than if the Commission not ~: .;: '~.:~. ,3a~:ance and they would be forced to come in and ask for a ..: ]u~ ~ &~.% o~ the number of parking s~aces. With ~eference to the ~ ~q,e~ty ~o 5he side, the masonry wall would be an excessive re- .[u~ ~. :,~.:0~ ; zney plan to put in a redwood fence. He commented that .... e ~. ~e some fences up already, but they will be constructing one wh: ch ~,.~i [', be more suitable for the area, Mr. Seltzer then discussed *-be ~::corom!.cs of the sinuatlon and the need to build 62 units. ['4ember Ad~ms asked the applmcant if he wculd be willing to install , b.~mLer guard next to the wooden fence, since the neighbors are wo£~£d about '.:he cars going through the fence~ Mr Seltzer sta5ed ,h ~ he %~culd do sO. C~.t} At~.o~'ney Lindberg advised the Commission that imposing the con- d~t ~on >f a masonry wall to buffer t:he residential properties along Oa]< ~aw. does nob seem to be a proper condition; it would be rather e:: ~.,J,":, as ~t relates to the var:ance request. Those speaking in protest were: Bllile Bowrzght, 538 Oaklawn Avenue, C C. No!~acber, 532 Oaklawn Avenue, Melvin C. Sutterfield, 522 O:~.~at;n Avenue. The3r ob3ectlons were: ~!) the property on Oaklawn ~ ~:n:~e-~am~ly residential property; i2) r. here is 15' between the [ u id.~ :g and the pIoperty line on OakJawn shown on the plan, but it .~ n:.~: d~,~ a[ied enough no show whether they will plant a hedge the~<~ ~r n::~; i ~) the parking layout ior the center' and southerly ] ~t ~i,.'~w ~he .cars parking right up to the fence, and any bumper <~3arr3 r .,,~,~=d here would knock ou: the s[~'aces entirely; i4) the ap- ,.~ , c,~n:s wo~e_ aware of the price of constIuct.Lon when they purchased '~,]~: p~cp<£:5 last year; consequently, they do not need to request ~ ~:~: ~en<: uo put in more units for more income; ~5] they should re- Ju, .[:c :,~mber <Df un:ts and the park:n~ spaces and thereby serve th, co~m~un::?; {6~ the co~dltlo~ of a concrete block wall is a rea- ~ ~[, ~ requ] ~emenn; (7) the required landscaping at the fencin~ ~ ~ ,~ '~ <ons:de~abie water to ma].ntain and th].s would cause de- ,, :~er~%~cn of the fence; (8) if the variance is granted, it would ., · [-,~ ~ ~ ~dzng out 5' in front on Oak!awn wNereby the service ~: ? ..:, :s rzghl ].n line with the houses on this street; (9) if t ~e,'~ ~.~:~ ~u= d_Lg to the maximum, where w~ll the guest parking be; ;.C', ~.!:~ ~ 1.~n does not show any area for trash collection - pre- .... , ~ is a c~ty dump and playground fox the kids; (ii) pur- r.s< ~. :'1{1 r homes here a num,~er of years ago and some of them under- :~ ? d :.~, the vacan~ lot was not wide enough to house apartments; ] ? d} ~veways ale being contlnuaily blocked and they were forced ' , ~a,/~ :m:'.:ed parking s:gns put up. -6- Chairman Stewart explained that there will be a condition whereby the applicant would have to submit landscaping plans subject to the approval of the Planning Director~ Director Warren explained that the applicants would have the parking lot ~n the location proposed whether or not they are before the Com- mission ~or a variance; that they would have no control over the development of the property. Chairman Stewart explained that the parking ratio is set up to take care of any guest parking; visitors are also entitled to park on the public street. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member York asked about the area as delineated in the General Plan. D~rector Warren noted that it was high-density classification, and the depth of these lots (between Oaklawn and Jefferson) have a depth of 110 feet~ Member York commented that eventually they would become R-3 and won- dered whether they should maintain a 20 foot setback because of the shallow lots~ He questioned whether this would be adequate for development~ D2rector Warren stated that the staff has been studying the setbacks ~n %he central part of the city - this will be one of things to be considered~ In the newer areas where development takes place, they have been assigning 15' setbacks; conceivably, with lots having this depth, a reduction in setback would have to be considered. Member Adams noted that the houses out there now are usable for anothe~ 15 - 20 years and they shouldn't be worrying about future plans r~ght now. Member Gregson said he was in favor of leaving it a% 20 feet. Member Rice felt there was no justification in reduc- ing it to 15 ~eet; he would also suggest the Woodlawn setback be reduced only to 12' Member York commented that, in the past, they have tried to eliminate the parking ~n the front year setback - 25' is extreme in this case but 12' should be the minimum. He also objects to the 2' for build- ~ng on ~he cul-de-sac. Member Hyde noted that there were no exceptional circumstances for £ed~cing the parking to 7½ feet other than the economic situation. Mr Seltzer declared this would be their proximity to Rohr Aircraft so that they do not have any on-street parking~ Member Adams remarked that he was not satisfied in allowing parking in the front yard setback as it will set a precedent. He has no ob3ectlon to the 2' setback on the cul-de-sac, however. Member Hyde noted that while the applicant wants to make maximum use o~ the land, it makes more congestion to the area. -7- Director Warren pointed out that the applicant is only proposing constructing of 62 units on 78,000 square feet of land area whereby he could construct 78; they are not reaching their maximum density nor overcrowding the property. Member Hyde stated he is withdrawing him comments about overcrowding ~n view of what the Director has stated. Mr. Don Jolly, 4746 E1 Cajon Boulevard, San Diego, stated they have not used the maximum ground coverage permissible by Code. They are proposing an open court area for the people who will be living there. Mr~ Jolly also noted the planting strip and the trees which will be used to screen their parking areas. If they had to remove the two spaces from the 3' setback, they would also lose 2 units~ He added that if they designed to the maximum they could go three stories, which would help them economically. They could also com- pile the parking into one lot, but they preferred to split it into 3 lots. Chairman Stewart commented that the Commission would prefer the 20' setback to be maintained on Oaklawn and the 12' on Woodlawn on both parking areas and that they will go along with the 2' on the cul-de- sac. Member York stated he preferred to see the entire development re- designed~ D~rector Warren commented that if the Commission desires to re-work their plans assuming it will be necessary to grant some portion of the variance~ he would suggest that they reopen the hearing and con- tinue it asking for the architect to bring back another plan. Mr~ S~ltzer asked that the Commission grant the variance, with a reduction ~o 12' on Woodlawn with a minimum of 2' at the cul-de-sac and they w~ll redesign their plans accordingly~ MSUC %Adams-Hyde) Approval of variance subject to the following cond~t;ions~ 1. Approval is based on a reduction in setback on Woodlawn Avenue to 12 feet and to a maximum of 2 feet on the cul-de-sac~ 2. Landscaping plans be brought in for approval by the Director of Planning prior to obtaining a building permit. That some form of protective bumper be devised to prevent vehi- cular damage to the fence along the easterly property line. Findings be as follows: a. That the strict application of the zoning regulations or require- ments would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the regulations~ -8- The setback on the west side of Woodlawn Avenue has never been established and thus was set at 25' which is deeper than that existing on the east side of the street and thus results in an unnecessary hardship~ b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions applica- ble to the property involved or to the intended use or develop- ment of the property that do not apply generally to other prop- erty ~n the same zone or neighborhood~ Every other parcel fronting on the street has a 12' setback and a por%ion of the parcel with frontage on the cul-de~ sac has a 2' setback. The applicant merely wishes to have the same prlvilege~ c That the granting of a variance will not be materially detri- mental to the public welfare or ~n3ur~ous to property or im- provements in such zone or neighborhood in which the property · s located The applicant owns every parcel fronting on Woodlawn, and thus this request affects only his property which already enjoys the requested setback. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan will not be affected by this proposal. SUBDIVISION (Con t'd) - Windsor Park - Tentative Map D~rector of Planning Warren submitted the tentative map, noting the location of the subdivision as being at the northerly terminus of Melrose Avenue north of East "J" Street and abutting the west side oi the proposed Inland Freeway~ He explained that this matter was continued from the previous meeting because the Commission requested that the applicant revise the map to provide a stub street extending northerly to the abutting property to furnish access to that parcel. Mr. Warren noted that the topography in this area was rough and drops down sharply at a point to the north. There w~ll be an ease- meDt provlded %o the water tank. The area comprises 18 acres and w~ll be subdivided into 67 lots. They have solved nearly all the problems ~hat were discussed; however, the staff is still concerned with the steep slopes~ They would recommend approval based on pro- v~dlng slope planting and subject to all the conditions recommended by the Dlvision of Englneering with the exception of one cond!tion ~he Commission may want to d~scuss: that the right-of-way for all streets be a mlnlmum of 51' - the map shows 46', which the Planning s%a~ ~s willlng to go along w~th. Mr. Warren then related the discussions the subdivider had with the F.H.A. ~n which F.H.A. ex- pressed their concern over the severity o~ the slopes and the method of development since they did not capitalize on the views; they suggested the subdividers provlde a loop street with double-frontage lots which would give them the advantage of the views. The slopes ~o the west and south would have to be maintained by someone, however. -9- Director Warren maintained that the fences could be on top of the slopes and the property line extended down to the slope~ The sub- dividers are willing to commit themselves as to the maintenance of these slopes for a period of one year, and also provide a sprinkler system to maintain it after that period. Clty Attorney Lindberg discussed the matter of the right-of-way, notang that in the past the City has reduced this to 46' with the construction of monolithic sidewalks, and it was found to be quite sufficient~ The question was raised by Cal-Am Water Company for room to install their water meters~ The suggestion was made by them that this entire width be dedicated street right-of-way because of the concern they had on going into private property to make neces- sary repairs in the future. Mr. Lindberg said he called the Water Company today and discussed this w±th them and they stated they would have no difficulty on a 46' right-of-way with a proper ease- ment; there is no need for additional right-of-way as far as the City is concerned. Mr. Bill Ansley, 19 Rancho Vista, representing the developer, stated he preferred the concept of development as suggested by the F.H~A. It would give them less lots (62 instead of 67), but they feel it would make the area more attractive. Mr Charles Pearson, Wittman Engineering Company, 3511 Camino del Rio, stated that, at first, he didn't approve of this idea. There are lots with banks as high as 50 feet, but developing in this fashion, they will be able to provide view lots throughout the sub- divlslon. The F.H~A. feels that the value will partially offset the cost and the sales will be better. Mr~ Pearson then discussed the Bay-Ho Subdivision which has this same concept~ Chairman Stewart commented that most of the soil around there is d~ffic~a~t to stabilize even for planting, and questioned what would happen to the banks not under private ownership - if it continues to erode, the City would have to maintain it. Mr. Ansiey stated they propose to make the southerly slope a separate lot and under a private ownership. He said Mr. Duke Ellington will own and maintain this lot~ Chairman Stewart felt this was a good condition to impose. The Commission discussed the grading and the slopes. Mr. Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, stated that a one-year maintenance does not go very wel~ as ~ar as the Public Works is concerned, and no matter who owns it, it would revert back to the property owners and loss of taxes - no one will want to sign for perpetual maintenance. Mr Warren indicated that F.H~A. requires maintenance of 90 days for the slopes, Mr~ Ansley stated that Mr. Ellington is willing to enter into an agreement with the City to maintain the area. They will also agree to put in a sprinkler system and ice plant there, Chairman Stewart stated that th~s sounds reasonable. Mr. Ansley asked for Commission approval of the concept. -10- Director Warren commented that there are many problems in approving a concept and not a map; however, he would not want to see this con- tinued for two weeks and then have the Commission go back to the old map. Mr. Gesley maintained that they are not opposed to the new concept- it has good features; they are just concerned over the maintenance of the property. They have not come up with a good solution for maintenance~ The installation of a sprinkler system is a very small part in taking care of these slopes. Director Warren agreed, adding that there is some way in which this could be solved. The Commission discussed continuing the matter for two weeks~ Director Warren felt the Commission should give the subdivider some guidance. Chairman Stewart indicated that they like the new concept, if the subdivider can get together with the staff and City Engineer and come up with a solution to the maintenance of the slopes. Mr. Ansley felt that a continuance would not serve the purpose they are after~ The first plan would place a considerably less value on the lots as far as real estate is concerned. Director Warren recommended the Commission endorse the plan with the question of whether or not an agreement would be reached for the maintenance of the slopes. The Commission discussed selling the homes with the private owners maintaining the slopes. Mr. Ansley indicated that they could have a recorded covenant stat- ing that the owners must maintain their slopes. He added that they are willing to go along with anything reasonable in order to get approval of the map. MSUC (York-Hyde) Approval of the concept - an alternate proposed by the subdivider and F.H.A. submitted at this meeting. This alter- nase provides for a limited number of double-frontage lots and narrowed streets in the easterly portion of the subdivision. Action on this matter is continued to the meeting of May 1, 1967, so that the subdivider will meet with the staff and reach an agreement which will assure proper planting and maintenance of the resultant slopes~ SUBDIVISION - Mestler Manor Unit NO. 1 - Final Map Director of Planning Warren submitted the map noting the location as the southwest corner of Fourth Avenue and Kearney Street. The sub- division contains 23 lots and the staff would recommend approval since it conforms to the tentative map. MSUC (Gregson-Adams) Recommend approval of the final map of Mestler Manor Unit No. 1. -11- SUBDIVISION Southwestern College Estates, Unit No~ 2 D~rector of Planning Warren submitted the final map of Unit No. 2, noting the location as Otay Lakes Road, east of Southwestern Junior College; the unit contains 77 lots. This unit includes the area purchased by the School District for an elementary school site. The staff recommends approval based on two conditions; the map conforms %o the tentative map previously approved. MSUC ~Guyer-Rlce) Recommend approval fo the map subject to the fol- lowIng conditions: 1 The location on the final map of all necessary tree planting easements as required by the City Engineer~ The specific type of plant material for slope planting shall be approved by the Director of Plannlng~ Extension of Time on Condational Use Permit - Southeast Corner Otay Lakes Road and Gotham Street R. and D. Kelton Director of Planning Warren noted the letter received from Mr~ A. B. Mayfield, Standard Oil Company of California, Western Operations, Inc., requestang an extension of two years on the conditional use permit granted R and D. Kelton for a service station at this loca- tlon. Mr~ Warren stated that the area is zoned C-N, and the staff would recommend that the extension be granted, but suggest that the Commission add a condition whereby the developer of the service stataon would construct a ranch-type building which would be more compatible with the adjacent residential area. Director Warren read the conditions imposed on the original condi- ~lonal ~se permit, noting that some of these conditions are now re- quired unde~ the C-N zone. RESOLUTION NO. 466 Resolutlon of the City Planning Commission Grant- MSUC (Race-Adams) ~ng an Extensaon of Time on Conditional Use Permit No. C-65-3. The permit will now expire on August 9, 1969. R_~e~ort on Request by Frank Ferreira for Modification in Prezoning Request at Vista Drive, south of Bonita Road Director of Planning Warren explained that this matter involves 5 acres sub3ect to prezoning which has been before the Commission previously; the request was for prezoning to C-2~ The property has not been annexed but it will be, pending the outcome of the prezon- ~ng. The Commission held a public hearing on this matter and re- commended R-1 prezonang to the Council. At the City Council meet- lng of February 7, 1966, Mr~ Ferrelra asked to retract his request for prezonang to C-2 and requested interim zoning to R-3 until such time as ~he freeway alignment is established, after which he would lake to have C-1 zonlng. The Council referred this back to the Commission for report; the Council hearing was continued to May 2, 1967. At the time the Coramlssaon considered this matter, there was -12- a question of the ireeway alignment, and the uouncil asked that the staff contact the State Division of Highways. Mr. Warren indicated that the staff discussed this with the Highway Division and just rec3ently, they sent the staff a map and a letter stating that the alignment was now firm. However, this realignment has not been accepted by the City or the County. Mr. Warren then read the find- ings taken from the previous prezoning request. The Council is now asking for the Commission's report as to Mr. Ferriera's request. A public hearing is not required for such reconsideration. Director Warren ~hen discussed the freeway interchange map. City Attorney Lindberg stated that this is the first instance under our new procedural ordinance which, in order for the Council to modify a recommendation of the Commission, they have sent it back to the Commission for a report. While this is not the typical situation we might have, the Council has indicated that they do not desire a particular zoning that they did indicate that they wish to consider a modification of the recommendation if certain factors explained here were changed during the interim period in which they consldered the matter. Pursuant to the procedural ordinance, what- ever report the Commission forwards to the Council will be suffic- ient for Council action without further referral to the Planning Commission. Member Guyer asked about the C-V zone as it relates to this property~ Director Warren indicated that the General Plan calls for this use fo~ at least a portion of the property. He then questioned Mr. Ferre~ra as to whether he still is requesting R-3 zoning for this property, since Mr. Ferreira indicated at the Council meeting that this was the zone he would like placed on his property until such t~me as the alignment is known~ Since the alignment has now been flrmed up, Mr~ Warren asked if the applicant was still requesting the R-3 zoning. Mr. Frank Ferreira, 3715 Putter Drive, Bonita, stated there was no need to ask for the R-3 zoning now.. He added that the Council did not favor the Commission's recommendation of R-1 zoning for this property. Mr. Warren stated that his observations were that the Council ex- pressed no such opinion; that the adjacent owners objected to small lots in the area. Mr Perreira discussed how for the past 3 years he has been working with the State on the proposed development of this property, and how nothing definite could be done until the alignment was firmed. Now, that the freeway right-of-way will be acquired, it is highly im- probable that R-1 zoning in this area will be retained. Some of the properties on Bonita Road will be landlocked, and Mr. Shepard from the Division of Highways has asked Mr~ Ferreira to locate his frontage road so that these homes can use it for access; however, there will be only 3 homes landlocked, and the problem is not so great. He asked that the Commission consider C-1-D zoning so that he can formulate his plans for this development~ -13- The Commission d~scussed the proposed alignment of Vista Drive as submitted by the Division of Hlghways~ M~ Warren indicated that he bas discussed this with the Engineering Division and commented that if the entire area is to be zoned com- mercially, then Vista Drive should be realigned further south as Mr~ ~erreira wants~ if it ~s eng~neeringly £easible. Chairman Stewart questloned whether Mr Warren was able to study the entire area as to land ~se~ Mr. Warren remarked that his staff had not, and what the General Plan shows for this area is very schematic. Chairman Stewart stated he was reluctant to zone this now and leave that area north to Bonita Road in an R-1 use. Mr Ferrelra e×plalned that the area left south of Vista Drive ac cording to his plan would be 100' w~de or 20,000 square feet; he would like to request R-3-D for this parcel and the rest C~i-D~ ME, Warren re£erred to the staff's comments in which he stated that at present, they do not have the C-V zone on the books which could be applied to this area The staff is a l~ttle unsure of the need for C-1 zoning as it has no relationship to the freeway interchange such as the C-V would have~ There is probably a need for commer- cial zoning in this area but this could be accomplished with the C-N zone. Member York ~elt the C-1-D zone would be appropriate. He remarked that they denied th~s same zone on two grounds: it was premature because the alignment was not established which it is now; and secondly, the General Plan spells out C-V zoning, but it is a very long way in the future. The C-1 zoning would give the developer an opportunity to make a plan for the development of this property - he is now ready for the planning stages of this commercial develop- ment, There is definitely a need for a commercial center here. Member Adams stated he feels the same now as he did previously when they recommended the R-1 zoning Commercial development was prema- %ure not only because of the alignment not being established, but ~t is 3 to 4 years before this freeway will be constructed. What- ever development goes in there should be either C-V or C-N. Mr. Adams added that it would be a big mistake to allow a massive de- velopment there~ Member York felt that if there were a logical way to split the de- velopment, it would be good; however, this should be left up to ~he developer. Chairman Stewart commented that if the development faced on Bonlta Road and 3olned the interchange down there, he would have a dif- ferent feeling; however, going off a main road 200-300 feet and be- fore a freeway ls even in reminds him of the area aroung State College where one feels it was zoned strictly for speculation~ He added that the staff has not studied this for a shopping center site, and he strongly feels that it is completely r±diculous, from a Planning standpoint, to take 5 acres situated away from a major -14- road and zone it commercially - it is entirel3 wrong. Chairman Stewart stated that the residents an this area should not have commercial zoning behind them; they should have an opportunity to express their feelings in the matter. Mr. Ferreira indicated that the only decent shopping center in the C~ty was the Broadway Shopping Center and this is because they were given an area to develop~ He added that it was a problem to try to come up with a development for the C-V zoning. Mr~ Warren commented that the Broadway people sold the City with a plan~ Mr? Ferreira further added that it was his intent to develop the property and not to sell it. He said he is now ready to go ahead and put the street in and to do his grading work which will cost him between $50,000 and $100,000, but he is reluctant to do ~hls if he does not know where he is going. Member Adams stated that the proper zoning here ultimately should be e~ther C-V or C-N and a good development could be worked out. Member Guyer agreed~ Chairman Stewart reiterated that he would like to see a study of 5he area made by the staff. Member York asked what could be put ~n a C-V and a C-N zone that could no~ be put into a C-1 zone. Mro Warren stated that a C-1 zone does not permit motels. Mr~ Ferre~ra indicated he has a $45,000 drainage problem that must be solved immediately; he has to know which way he is going, and he needs the C-1 zoning in order to spend this money. Member Hyde asked Mr~ Ferreira if he would request C-V zoning if it were on the books~ Mr~ Ferreira stated he would not because it was too restrictive. He added that he has a supermarket interested · n coming into this area; that they made a market suevey which jus%lfled their coming ~nto the area,~ Mr~ Warren explained the difference between the C-N and the C-1 zones indicating that C-N would accomplish everything Mr~ Ferreira desires except a motel. Mr. Fer~e~ra stated he would accept the C-N zoning. Member Hyde asked if it were appropriate to ask for a delay on this matter~ Mr~ Warren reminded the Commission that the Council has continued the hearing to May 2, 1967, and they shouldn't continually delay lt~ M~ Ferreira stated that his option is void on May 4, and that it has cost him $1,000 for this delay so far. He remarked that after the frontage ~oad is confirmed, he would like to come back to the Commission and ask for C-1-D zoning for the small parcel fronting on Bonita Road after he has purchased it. -15- Director Warren indicated that a market analysis must be made of this area an order to justify a shopping center - as stated an the ordinance. He added that the C-V zone will be available for that land near the ramp which will lend atself to that type of development. There may be need for a general commercial facility in this area but not a regaonal one~ The Commission discussed the flood control inundation. Mr. Warren andicated that portions of the surrounding area would be subject to flooding until the channel is constructed or until sufficient fall is added. MS (York-Guyer) Recommend to the City Councal prezoning from R-1 to C-N~ Discussion: Chairman Stewart remarked that there is a recommenda- tion before the Council now, and he feels in the absence of having a study by the Planning staff and some justification of a market analys~s, the Commission would be derelict in their duties if they recommended this commercial zoning at this time~ They should let it go as it is now and have a study made of the area. Member Adams stated at would be against all zoning principles to zone this island for commercaal use at this time. Member Guyer felt the Commission should give the applicant a chance. Member York suggested that perhaps the honesty of the applicant is to his disadvantage; that he could submit any imaginary plan if that is a prerequisite. The motion faaled to carry by the following vote: AYES: Members York, Guyer and Hyde NOES: Members Gregson, Stewart, Race and Adams ABSENT: None MSC (Adams-Rice) Commission reaffirm their recommendation to the Council for R-1 zoning. AYES: Members Adams, Rice, Gregson and Stewart NOES: Members Guyer, York and Hyde ABSENT: None City Attorney Lindberg stated that this entire matter will go back to the Council as a report and will include the discussions. To Be Set for Hearing Rezoning from C-2 to R-3, Area north of "F" Street, between Woodlawn Avenue and Broadway Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the area to be rezoned. MSUC IGuyer-Adams) Public hearang on thas matter be set for May 15, 1967. -16- Planning Commission Interpretation of Section 33.51 of the Zoning Ordinance - Parking in Front Yard Setback D~rector of Planning Warren stated that the ordinance presently states that no portion of the front yard can be used for offstreet parking. The staff has received some plans for a development for the south side of "F" Street which has a 25' front yard setback, and would pro- v~de access for the parking in the front setback. By revising this plan, however, they could park outside the front setback. Member Adams commented that parking requires a driveway for access - in and out~ City Attorney Llndberg read the clause from the ordi- nance which states that no parking spaces should be located in the front yard. Director Warren asked the Commission's intent on this, and a possible amendment of this in the Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Stewart felt it should be used for planting instead of asphalt. Member York felt the intent of the ordinance was that it should be landscaped Mr. Llndberg asked if It was the intent of the Commission to eli- minate parking in the front of buildings in R-3 zones~ Chairman Stewart stated it should be so worded that the parking would not be allowed in front of the buildings. Director Warren stated the staff will submit something to the Com- mission in the next ma~ling to this effect, and if it meets with their approval, they can set it for hearing. It should probably not prohibit parking, under any condition, "in front" of buildings, but that a landscaped front yard should be maintained. Recommendation - Proposed RevisIons for Shopping Center at Hilltop Drive and Naples Street D~rector of Planning commented that not all of the present Commis- sioners have been involved w~th this matter. Because it involves a schematic plan for landscaping, signs, etc., this matter couldn't be accomplished until the staff was at full strength; thus, the delay~ Mr~ Warren referred to the drafts of letters sent to the Commissioners stating that this represents what the staf~ believes is reasonable as to what is required by ordinance. Chalrman Stewart commented that he would like to see a requirement ±or concrete between the sidewalk and the curb instead of the planting. Director Warren stated he hesitates to do this as they know the street will be widened eventually~ Member York discussed the bank on the west side, commenting that ~he gol~ course would not be maintaining this~ Member Adams stated that the slope belongs to the commercial property. Director Warren stated he would check into this. -17- MSUC {Adams-Rice! Approval of letters and landscaping plans for the shopping center at Hilltop and Naples as submitted by the staff, be approved. ~eques% for Extension of Time on Variance - John Mabee SWC Bonita Road and Allen School Road A le~Ler irom Mr~ John Mabee was read in which he requested an ex- tenslon of time on his Variance No. 66-48 granted November 21, 1966, ~or a ~eduction in the number of required parking spaces for a pro- posed supermarket at the southwest corner of Bonita Road and Allen School Road- They stated there was a delay in their design drawings; however~ they will be breaking ground within the next 60 days. MSUC ~Guyer-Gregson) Resolution of the City Planning Commission RESOLUTION NO. 467 Granting an Extension of Time on Variance NOo The variance will now expire on April 21, 1968 (one year extension granted~. Budget Request D~rector of Planning Warren referred to the budget request mailed to ~he Members and asked for any comments. The Commission d~scussed the need for more clerical help in the Planning Off~ce, and agreed that the Budget Request was reasonable. League D~nner D~rector Warren noted the next dinner of the League of California Cltles would be held at the Coronado Hotel on Wednesday~ April 26, and any Commissioners wishing to attend should call the Secretary ~or reservations ADJOURNMENT MSUC iRlce-Gregson! Meetlng be adjourned s~ne die. Meeting ad- journed at i1:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted,