HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1967/02/20 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
February 20, 1967
The regular adjourned 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: Stewart, York, Hyde, Gregson,
Rice and Adams. Absent: (with previous notification) Member Guyer~ Also
present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, Assis-
tant Planner Lee, City Attorney Lindberg and Assistant City Engineer Gesley.
STATEMENT
The Secretary of the Commission hereby states that she did post within 24
hours,as required by law, the notice for the adjourned meeting of February
20, 1967.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Hyde-Rice) Approval of minutes of February 6, 1967, as mailed.
PUBLIC HEARING: Rezoning - Area Between Fourth Avenue and Glover Court on
Both Sides of D Street - R-1 to R-3
Director of Planning Warren stated that this action was initiated by the Com-
--'ission at the request of the staff. This proposed rezoning came about as a
request for rezoning for the lot on the northeast corner of Fourth Avenue
and D Street; the Commission approved the rezoning but denied the conditional
use permit that would have permitted a doctor's office. Much of this area in
the central part of Chula Vista is called out on the General Plan as high-
density residential. The staff felt that it would be appropriate for the
Commission to call this hearing and get the reaction of the residents to this
proposal. Director Warren then submitted a plat discussing the existing
land use in the area. He noted that a petition opposing this rezoning was
received in the office bearing 42 signatures representing 23 households.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Speaking in opposition to the proposal were: Melvin Anderson, 89 Glover
Court, Claude Yates, 66 Glover Court, M. Gaar, 387 D Street, John Callahan,
82 Glover Court. They stated as their reasons: (1) all the resldents in
the area are opposed to it; (2) they all have tremendous investments in
p~perty here; (3) it would be a "betrayal" to those residents since they
purchased their property believing it was in an R-1 area and for the City
to come in now and rezone it to R-3; (4) once R-3 is granted, it would open
the door for future R-3 development plans for the entire area (5) R-3 is
not compatlble to this R-1 area; no reason to impose apartments on this
area; (6) in the face of all the opposition and the petition submitted,
there is no justification for granting this proposal.
Director Warren remarked that it was unusual for the staff to be ~n a posi-
tion of recommending zoning to which a neighborhood ob3ects~ The planning
Commission is charged with looking ahead for future development uo promote ~
conformance to the General Plan of the City. The General Plan covers a
general area and it does not seek to identify specific properties or spe-
cific rezonlng. People living in an area such as this one should be aware
of what will happen there ultimately -- as per the requests submitted to
Commission and Council~ If the Plan calls for high density in %his area,
and the Plan is correct, then the Commission would be wrong in granting
variances for this use instead of the rezonlng. Mr~ Warren ±ndlcated 5ha%,
in view of the opposition, the Commission should honor the R-i zoning ~o~
those areas; however, the staff would suggest that those lots fronting oD
Fourth Avenue, on the southeast corner of D Street, and the lot for which
a variance was previously granted for apartments be considered for R-3 re-
zoning. He added that it was difficult to determine what should take
place next to single-family development to insure compatibility.
The Commission discussed the various land use in the City; Chairman
Stewart noted a few areas where R-1 backs up to commercial. He commented
that this was unfortunate, but that it does and must exist.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hea~ing was de-
clared closed.
Member York declared that, in view of the protests and the fact that most
of the land under consideration is developed with rather expens±ve homes,
he feels the neighborhood is not ready for redevelopment. He would sug-
gest that they reduce the area involved to those spaces along Fourth .~
Avenue and the area behind the church property.
Member Adams felt the two lots east of the corner lot on "D" Street should
be included~ Member Gregson questioned the existing R-3 use on property
zoned R-l, and the fact that this property owner is ob3ectlng Chairman
Stewart stated he had a non-conforming use and probably wan~s to stay that
way. Member Rice suggested the property fronting on Pourt~;~enue be held
in abeyance until such time as a need for rezonIng occurs; he felt the peo-
ple on Glover Court deserved some consideration.
Chairman Stewart disagreed, contending that R-3 zoning exists in the area
and it would be proper for the Commission to rezone that property already
developed with apartments. By imposing the "D" zone, it would give the
Commission proper control over the development~
Member Adams remarked that what is being proposed now is a substantial con-
cession to the property owners; however, he would still like to see those
~wo lots on D Street east of the corne~ lot rezoned R-3.
Member York declared that if there is no immediate need for this being re-
developed to R-3 use, it would be a mistake to rezone these two lots.
RESOLUTION NO. 452 Resolution of the Cl~y Planning Commission Recommending
MSUC :York-Adams) to the City Council the Change of Zone for Property on
Fourth Avenue south of "D" Street, and One Lot North of
D, 160' East of Fourth Avenue from R-1 to R-3-D
-2-
The findings of fact in support of said determination are as follows:
The General Plan designates the subject properties as High Density
Residential which corresponds to the R-3 zone~
b. Good zoning practice dictates the change because of its relation to
existing multiple family residential area and the major throughfares.
c. The "D" zone would give the Commission an opportunity to promote de-
velopment compatible with adjacent single-family use.
PUBLIC HEARING: (Cont'd) Request for Variance from Sign Area, Height and
Setback Regulations for Service Station at Northwest
Corner of Orange and Melrose Avenues - Humble Oil and
Refining Company
Director of Planning Warren stated that this item was continued from the
previous meeting in order for staff and Commission to attend a meeting in
Norwalk where service stations were discussed, and for the staff to discuss
the matter further with the applicants to go over the differences of
opinion. Mr. Warren remarked that they did attend this meeting in Norwalk,
and that he did meet with the applicants. There are still some decisions
for the Commission to make~ The applicants have requested two freestanding
signs 28 feet high from ground level. After discussing the height level
of the sign, the applicant determined that an encroachment into the setback
would be necessary; otherwise, the sign would cut into the canopy. They
prefer to keep the two prlce signs. Mr. Warren delineated on the map the
~.imits of the C-N zoning and the location of the proposed service station.
~e then noted the location of each of the proposed signs.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was re-
opened.
Mr. Sherwood Morf, representing Humble Oil Company, spoke of the meeting
with the Director of Planning at which they came to the following conclu-
sions: they would change the height of their signs from 28 feet to 20 feet
with one sign on each street reducing the area of their oval sign to 32
square feet (based on a rectangular, the sign would measure 48 square feet)
or would accept one revolving sign on the corner. Mr. Morf said they would
accept either proposal. He spoke of the freestanding sign cutting into
the canopy, and felt they would get better visibility, if the sign was
erected on the property line. He added that although this shopping center
is part of a residential area, it is situated on Orange Avenue which is
proposed to be one of six major arterials of Chula Vista and the ~nter-
cban~e will be directly east of this. The effect of t~ese signs would not
be too great on the community; if any effect would be had, it would be on
the southern portion, as the eastern portion will have a freeway.
The Commission discussed with the applicant the need for two freestanding
signs and the placement of the sign in the setback area. Mr. Morf de-
clared that by erecting the signs in the required setback (5 feet) it would
have to be placed in the driveway thereby causing a possible traffic hazard
~%o the cars going in and out of the station.
-3-
Member Hyde questioned the applicant about having one freestanding, non-
rotating sign~ Mr. Morf stated that a study made by his company Indicated
that a non-rotating sign was not as effective as a rotating one; he noted
the wording of the sign would be just ~our letters.
Member Adams commented that in all the films shown them at this Norwalk
meeting about service stations, he failed to see one service snatlon that
had two freestanding sign - one directed toward each corner street.
Mr. Morf declared the purpose of these two signs would be to serve two
areas: the traffic on Melrose Avenue and the traffic on Orange Avenue
Director Warren commented that it was difficult to resolve the attitudes
of the staff and Commission with those of the Oil Company. He indicated
he was happy about the concession in the height of the sign, and added
that no revolving or moving signs have been permitted in the C-N zone;
such was the case with Union Oil across the street from this proposed slte.
There being no further comment, either ~or or against, the hearing was de-
clared closed.
Member Adams remarked that between deciding on the rctatlng sign and the
two smaller non-rotating ones, he would prefer the two stationery slgns~
However, this would increase their sign area way beyond what the ordi-
nance allows - 50 square feet; by giving them 96 square feet of s~gn area.
Member Rice declared that this was primarily a residential area and that
the Commission should hold firm to what they consider is a good s~gn prac-
tice~ He added tha~ this station is entitled to no more square footage
for signs than the station across the street. The fact that they are on
the opposite corner does not alter the fact that they are ~n a C-N zone-
One sign on the corner has numerous advantages and it does not interfere
with the landscape nor cause any problems with the setbacks Mz R~ce in-
dicated that Neighborhood Centers are planned to serve the "neighborhood"
and not to serve those ten miles away~ The people that purchased residen-
tial property here should be protected.
Member Hyde stated he would agree to one single non-rotating sign.
Member York questioned the square footage of sign area on the bu~ldlng.
Director Warren noted that it was 34 square feet, and that a total of 77
square ~eet of sign area was graDted to the station across the street.
Member York commented that 48 square ~eet for the one freestanding sign
on the corner, plus 38 square feet for the sign on the building, and
s~ctl~er 30 feet for the two price signs would g~ve them a total of 112
square feet He added that he concurs with the staf~ that this is an a~ea
no be studied so that a reasonable standard could be adopted. He felt the
signs should be restricted to e~her plastic or metal signs that no ply-
wood or paper signs be allowed~ More objectionable still, ~s the type of
signs used by some service stations, such as paper, etc. Director Warren
indicated tha5 the Commission has the prerogative to approve the type of
Mr. Morf questioned 5he ordinance requirement which seems to allow two
freestanding signs for corner property. Director Warren indicated this
was for the shopping center itself and not for an increment of it; in any
regard, he added, no matter how it was interpreted, the total sign area
proposed would still exceed that allowed by ordinance.
MSUC (Adams-Hyde) Approval of the variance request subject to the following:
1. The total maximum sign area shall be as follows:
a. 34 square feet for the sign on the building;
b. 48 square feet for the freestanding pole sign - sign to be statio-
nery and non-rotating; said sign to be located at the intersection
of Melrose and Orange Avenues and shall not overhang the property
line.
c. 30 square feet total for the two price signs.
2. The maximum overall height of the freestanding sign to be 20 feet.
3. Signs approved shall be limited to those submitted to the Commission
at their meeting of February 20, 1967.
Findings are as follows:
a. That the strict application of the zoning regulations or requirements
would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships incon-
sistent with the general purpose and intent of the regulations.
Previous approval was given for additional sign area for the proposed
station directly to the east.
b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to
the property involved or to the intended use or development of the prop-
erty that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone or
neighborhood.
All other service stations in the C-N zones have been granted per-
mission to erect signs in excess of 50 square feet. Service stations
have indicated a need for such signing to do business, as opposed to
other retail uses~
c. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements ~n such zone
or neighborhood ~n which the property is located.
The amcu,~ of s~gns recommended by the staff are less than the amount
c£ signs to other stations on similar s~tes. The s~gns involved in
excess of allowed area are conservative and flush with the building.
d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the ob3ectlves
of the General Plan.
The sign requirements will be compatible with others which may be de-
veloped in the Shopping Center.
-5-
PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE - Request for Reduction in Front Yard Setback from 12½' to 3' - 401 H Street - Robert E. Casey
The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction in
front yard setback from 12½ feet to 3 feet for a block masonry wall mea-
suring 8 feet in height and overhanging beams whlch will be used to screen
a recreational area.
D~rector of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location and
a detailed plat of the proposed development. He explalned that the exist-
lng setback is governed by an average of the existing development on the
street: the Bay General Hospital has a 25 foot setback and the medlcal
office building on the corner en3oys a zero setback, therefore~ taking an
average, this property would have to maanta~n a 12½ foot setback. They
are requestang a reductlon to 3 feet to allow for the masonry wall and the
overhanging beams which would project to within 3 feet of the property line.
Mr. Warren then reviewed the staff's recommendations of approval-
This being the tame and place as advertased, the public hearing was opened~
Mr. Stan Merratt, representing Mr. Casey, stated they agree ~o all the con-
ditions.
Chaarman Stewart asked Mr. Merritt if th~s vacant property was being used
by the tenants of the office building for parking purposes~ Mr. Merrltt
stated it was and added that they have no control over thls~
There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearang was de-
clared closed.
Member Adams questioned the size of the wall on the west side of this pro-
posed recreational area. Director Warren indicated it was 3½ feet which
the staff as recommendang be increased to 4 feet; this wall will be used
to screen the parking area. Member Adams then suggested the Commission
grant the variance allowing a reduction for the beams and another for the
wall. Mr. Warren andicated that the Commission could approve the plan as
submitted, as the fand~ngs by the staff would cover the elements oi the
setback request~
Member Rice questioned the averaging of the setbacks in an area and asked
af any consideration was given to the length of a buildang - in this case,
the hospital has quate a long lot and the medical buildang on the corner
a much shorter one. Mr~ Warren indacated that no provision is made for
thas, but that the ordinance does allow for an averaging of the setback~
The D~kln~ meets the o~dlnance requlrement, and the t~aff~c ordinance
requares that the landscaping at the corner of the parking entrance be
kept low so as to prevent any traffic hazard.
MSUC (York-Rice) Request ~or variance be approved sub3ect to the followang:
1. The 6' high fence shown on the west side shall be extended 3' to the
south to meet the proposed masonry wall.
2. The height of the masonry wall screening the parking area to be in-
creased from 3' to 4' on the south side~
The area between the street curb and sidewalk shall be filled with con-
crete (H Street and Fourth Avenue).
4. Minimum of two street trees planted on H Street and Fourth Avenue (sub-
ject to staff approval).
5. Architecture shall be substantially in conformance to plans and sketches
submitted ~subject to staff review).
Detailed plans showing the proposed architecture, signs and landscaping
shall be submitted to the Planning staff for approval prior to the
issuance of any building permit.
Findings be as follows:
a. That the strict application of the zoning regulations or requirements
would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsis-
tent with the general purpose and intent of the regulations.
Previous approval was given for a zero setback on the adjoining prop-
erty to the east~
b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to
the property involved or to the intended use or development of the prop-
erty that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone or
neighborhood~
A 3' high wall would not effectively screen the recreational area
from H Street. Also, the zero setback previously gran'ted to the
adjoining property restricts the visibility of the site unreasonably.
The overhanging beams will relieve the monotony of a consistent set-
back and are designed in a manner which will not deprive the property
of necessary light and air.
c. That the gransing 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 setback will be less than previously granted to other
uses in the area.
d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives
of the General Plan.
Thc i,~gh density use proposed which is somewhat dependent upon this
variance conforms to the General Plan and the matter of setbacks is
relatively d~scretionary as it relates to the General Plan.
PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE - Request to Build on Lot Without 50' Street
Frontage - 21 Cresta Way - James T. and Mary F. Dowe
The application was read ~n which a request was made to construct a single-
family dwelling on a one acre parcel of land that will be served by a 30
~- foot wide easement~
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, and
adjacent zoning. He explained that the existing easement is 30 feet wide
and that this variance was necessary since the ordinance states that you
must have a minimum of 50 feet on a dedicated street. Mr. Warren indlca- ~
ted that the Co~unisslOn has granted similar variances in the past, and that
the staff recommends approval subject to two conditions, and the staff
findings.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Dr. James Dowe, the applicant, stated the conditions meet with his approval.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the public hearing
was declared closed,,
Member Adams claimed this was a good example of the proper use oi a var-
iance - that it was property suited for the use for which it is zoned but
that it cannot be used for that purpose unless the 50 foot of frontage on
a dedicated street is waived by a variance.
MUSC (Adams-Gregson) Approval of variance subject to the following:
1, A 12' wide drive shall be maintained extending from the end of Cresta
Way to the property line of this parcel.
2. House shall be set back a minimum of 25' from the easement and provide
at least two onsite surfaced parking spaces in addition to the re-
quired two-car garage and a paved drive per City specifications to the
property line.
Findings be as follows:
a. That the strict application of the zoning regulations or requirements
would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsis-
tent with the general purpose and intent of the regulations~
Previous approval has been given to other parcels to build on ease-
ments and this appears to be the only practicable way to allow de-
velopment of the site,
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 neighbor-
hood.
The n~cp~rty cannot be served by a street at this time, leaving the
~asement as the only means of access to the lot.
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 whlch the property is located.
Two existing residences presently use this easement for access~
d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives
of the General Plan~
The only reference to this area is to maintain one-half acre lots,
--8--
PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE - Request for Storage of Wrecked Vehicles in C-~
Zone - 621 H Street - Charles P. Mote
The application was read in which a request was made for permission to store,
temporarily, wrecked vehicles at 621 H Street, a C-2 zone.
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, ad-
jacent land use and zoning in the area° He noted the property was fenced
and there is access to the property from H Street~ The variance request
is necessary because the ordinance does not provide for this use in a C-2
zone - it is allowed in the M-2 zone. Mr. Warren indicated that an amend-
ment to the ordinance has been prepared allowing for this use in the C-2
and M-1 zones with a conditional use permit~ He then delineated the con-
d~tions of approval for this request which he indicated were the same as
in the amendment.
Member Gregson noted that a 3 year period was requested and asked if this
were necessary. Director Warren commented that the Commission can place
any time limit on the approval which they feel is reasonable.
Member Adams asked what recourse the City had if the conditions of the var-
iance were not complied with. City Attorney Lindberg stated the variance
would either be revoked or an action of the Court would be brought about to
enforce the variance; there was no problem here.
Member Adams felt the time limit should be one year, and reviewed and ex-
tended from year to year. City Attorney Lindberg felt the Commission was
assuming this would be a non-complying use, but that they should grant the
applicant a reasonable time to operate his business.
Chairman Stewart felt three years was not unreasonable to come in for a
review. A use such as this one is a stable use and it is only a question
of keeping the gates closed and the signs off the fence.
Member Adams commented that thls particular use was no improvement to the
street, and should the landscaping be neglected, etc., then the matter
should be reviewed~
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Charles Mote, the applicant, stated he checked with the Planning De-
partment 5½ years ago and was told this use was allowed in a C-2 zone~ He
therefore purchased this particular property three years ago and recently
had to comply with the City requirements for towing services. Now he finds
out that it isn't the proper zone and thereby is asking for the approval
of this variance.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was de-
clared closed.
Member York commented that this was a situation whereby they were torn be-
tween two things: the lot has existed for a number of years and the appli-
cant has spent a good deal of money complying to the ordinance~ However,
Mr. York added, the comments made by Member Adams were appropriate since
many times, conditions of variances are ignored. The particular property
does not present a good appearance on this part of H Street, which will
ultimately be developed with good commercial uses. Nothing can be done
economically to improve this property for this particular use; for this
reason, he would like to see the variance granted for a minimum amount of
time and, in the meantime, it would give the applicant more time in which ~
to shop around for a more appropriate location for this kind of uses
The Commission then discussed the paving for the lot and it was suggested
that paving be required for the drive as far back as the gate and a re-
quirement made for the maintenance of the landscaping in front of the fence.
Member Hyde remarked that these conditions would increase the investment
of this property, and felt a three year period of time would be more rea-
sonable.
Member York felt that economics was a large part of the consideration. He
asked the applicant if he would prefer a one year variance based on the
recommendations of the staff or a three year variance with tighter restric-
tions, such as paving, landscaping, etc. Mr. Mote stated he would prefer
the one-year; however, he explained that the contracts being let out by the
City were for a period of two years.
Chairman Stewart questioned whether the provisions of this variance would
apply, if the change to the ordinance was adopted permitting this use in
the C-2 zone.
City Attorney Lindberg explained that the Commission is granting a use
variance. If the new ordinance is adopted, unless the applicant requests
a conditional use permit, there would be no change in the status of his
property. He would still be operating under this use variance.
Member York suggested this variance be granted for a period of two years,
and leave it up to the staff to see that it is enforced.
There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was de-
clared closed~
MSUC (York-Gregson) Approval of variance, subject to the following condi-
tions:
1. The entire site be fenced with a 6' high solid fence per staff approval.
Note: existing site is satisfactorily fenced~
2. The area between the fence and sidewalk shall be landscaped and pro-
vided with an adequate method of watering. (Both items subject to
staff approval).
3. Ti~e driveway area from the sidewalk to the entrance gate and the
storage area shall be treated with SC-250 asphalt road oil with a
one inch penetration to form a water-resistant and dust free surface~
4. This permit is granted fora two year period of time to allow for
Planning Commission review of the site~
5. No salvage or wrecking of vehicles is allowed.
6. No advertising or signs shall be attached to the fence.
-!0-
7. Lighting shall be designed to prevent reflection or direction toward
adjacent residential use or public streets.
~' 8. The height of vehicles shall not exceed the height of the fence.
9. This variance granted for a two-year period of time.
Findings be as follows:
a~ That the strict application of the zoning regulations or requirements
would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsis-
tent with the general purpose and intent of the regulat~ons~
The strict application of the zoning regulations or requirements would
result in unnecessary hardships since the only allowable locations for
auto storage of wrecked vehicles is in the M-2 zones.
b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to
the property involved or to the intended use or development of the prop-
erty that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone or
neighborhood.
The nearest M-2 zoning which would allow this use is located over one-
fourth of a m~le from the service station intending to operate the
storage lot. There ~s a need to provide a closer relationship of the
two facilities for efficient operation.
c. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or ~n]ur~ous to property or improvements in such zone
or neighborhood in which the property is located.
The proposed use will be completely enclosed and provided with adequate
landscaping.
d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives
of the General Plan.
The granting of this variance will not be contrary to the objectives
of the General Plan since H Street west of Broadway has been zoned
commercially on both sides of the street with the recommendation to
revise the General Plan to reflect the change in policy in th~s area~
PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE Poutous Development and Saratoga Development
Corporation - Request for Reduction in Lot Size - Area
North and East of Flair SubdIvision
D~rector of Planning Warren stated that the staff received a letter from
the applicant asking that this matter be postponed to the meeting of
March 6, 1967.
MSUC(Rlce-Gregson~ Variance request be postponed to the meeting of March
6, 1967
-11-
PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Providing for Tem-
porary Storage of Wrecked Vehicles with Conditional Ue
Use Permit in C-2 and M-1 Zone
Director of Planning Warren stated that a copy of the proposed ordinance
was mailed to all interested parties. This ordinance sets up a provision
in the C-2 and M-1 zones which, with a conditional use permit, would allow
the temporary storage of wrecked vehicles.
Mr. Warren then proceded to explain the contents of the proposed ordinance.
The Commission discussed the requirement for a fence. Chairman Stewart
commented that if the fence is to be wooden, it should be painted, as it
would improve the appearance of the lot.
Member York suggested the wording "material for the fence to be approved
by the staff" explaining that a wooden fence might be appropriate for one
area but not another.
Mr. Warren suggested the wording: "subject to Planning Commission approval
--the type to be compatible with adjacent areas."
Chairman Stewart commented that since this would be a transitory use, re-
quiring a masonry wall would not be reasonable~
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
There being no comment, either for or against, the hearing was closed.
RESOLUTION NO. 453 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending
MSUC (Rice-Adams! to City Council the Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
Providing for Temporary Storage of Wrecked Vehicles
with Conditional Use Permit ~n C-2 and M-1 Zones
Member Rice requested addition of wording suggested by the staff relevant
to fencing.
Findings of fact are as follows:
1. Good zoning practice s~nce, with a conditional use permit, it would
give the Commission control over the site development which is neces-
sary to assure compatibility in certain areas.
2. The use of a temporary nature and will be specifically for the storage
of these vehicles no wrecking or repairing will be allowed on the
premises.
Request for Modification of Plans for Twin Tower Apartment Project
Director of Planning Warren remarked that this matter involved a question
of whether the Commission feels this requires another public hearing or
not. He explained that in December 1965, the Commission granted a variance
for the Twin Towers pro~ect to be constructed at the southeast corner of
Center Street and Fourth Avenue; the variance was necessary because of the
height - proposed 8 stories, and the R-3 zoned property; certain conces-
sions in parking were involved; and there was some concern as to the spe-
cific number of units. The staff has now received a revised plan that sub-
stantially represents the same concept - an 8 story building, the same
office space, same amount of multiple family area, but now they are speak-
-12-
lng of 170 units compared to 130, - the size of the units has been adjusted
and some of the two-bedroom units have been eliminated. The ratio of open
space has also been reduced. There is also a parking structure proposed
~' for the easterly property line and this would be a subject of a variance
request. Director Warren indicated that he does not anticipate any public
concern on the part of the adjacent property owners, but there is that
chance that another public hearing should be advertised.
City Attorney Lindberg stated that there is that desire to prolong hearings
on a variance, and the question here is whether this is actually a change
in %he plans or a modification of the provlsions. There is also the ques-
tion of whether this will increase the traffic flow, etc.
Director Warren indicated that as far as the parking is concerned, most of
the problems have been resolved. If a new hearing is called, the Commis-
sion would be considering only the new provisions and not the whole concept
of the project.
The Commission discussed the need for another hearing on the matter. City
Attorney Llndberg advised the Commission that unless they felt there was
a substantial revision to the plans that would generate more traffic, etc.,
they could proceed without advertising another hearing.
MSUC (Adams-York/ The changes as noted by the Director of Planning are
minor changes and consequently no need to advertise
another public hearing.
City Attorney Llndberg declared the findings would be the same as that
approved on the original variance - there would be no need to change the
f~ndlngs.
Director of Planning Warren then proce, ded to explain the plans for the
Twin Towers project. The two large buildings would be 8 stories with the
south tower to be used for residential units, and the north tower will
have one story for commercial, four stories of offices, and three for
multiple-family~ In the center of the project would be a banquet room
and coffee shop comblnedc The area east of that will have a patio, swim-
ming pool, etc~ The plan makes use of a portion of the City recreational
parking lot, which has been approved by the City Council. Director
Warren explained in detail the parking layout, with the subterranean and
ground level parking, and stated they have a provision now to add a deck
to the parking structure later on, if the need arises.
Thc floor area of some of the apartment units are less than our ordinance
requirement in floor area, and it appears that they have not made a de-
cision as to whether or not to use balconies, as originally planned~
Mr. Warren discussed the previously approved parking requirements, and
declared that consideration was given to the overlapping of the uses as
related to the office workers, so that at no time is it assumed that
everything will be in use at the same time. The new request, exclusive
of the banquet room, would require 326 spaces: 136 for the 170 units,
67 spaces for 13,400 square feet of retail area; 135 spaces for 54,000
square feet of office space; 40 spaces for the banquet room and 14 for
the coffee shop~ The applicant Ks proposing 329 spaces. The matter
stlll to be resolved is the amount of spaces needed for the banquet room~
This room will not always be filled with 200 people, but used only on spe-
cial occasions. If it is the determination of the Commission to require
the applicant to provide the 40 more spaces needed, he would have to have A
a total of 366 spaces. With the second deck contemplated, the applicant
will be able to provide' 356 spaces.
Member Adams questioned the concept of the open space~ Mr. Warren sa~d
this reduction was based on the density of development?
Chairman Stewart asked if the applicant was providing enough parking spaces
· f there was no further requirement to provide more spaces for the banquet
room. Mr. Warren noted it was based on the same formula approved previously
by the Commission.
Mr. Frank Ferreira, 3715 Putter Drive, Bonita, declared that economics dic-
tate policy~ He stated that the dimensions of the buildings have been de-
creased in both directions by 4 feet in one way and 9 feet in another way,
They have increased the number of one-bedroom units and decreased the num-
ber of two-bedroom units. They eliminated the center complex and substi-
tuted a smaller building; by decreasing this building by 8 feet, 16 feet
of more space was gained between the buildings. Mr. Ferrelra then discus-
sed the proposed structure for additional parking which will be built in
the future, if needed, It would be 9 feet off the ground w~th a one-hour
fire wall on the easterly end since it will be constructed on the property
line~ They will have a parking attendant on duty at all times, and con-
sequently, do not feel the need of constructing the deck at this t~me,
because of the overlapping uses.
Chairman Stewart questioned how the Commission could approve th~s~ There
may come a time when the Commission feels the applicant should construct
this deck, and the applicant may disagree. Mr~ Ferreira stated he is wil-
ling to have this made a condition. City Attorney Lindberg said he was
not sure this could be done.
Chairman Stewart asked if the matter of parking would be brought back to
the Commission for review after a number of months of use. Mr. Ferreira
declared that they have to bring the variance back before the Commission
if at any time they change the use of the area.
The Commission %hen dIscussed the parking for the banquet room~ Member
York compared this to the Beverly H~lton Hotel in Los Angeles, and noted
that it would be impossible to get the number of spaces required on the
lot; it would be ~nfeasible. Mr. Warren reiterated that the applicants
are provld~ng 326 spaces with no regard to any extra spaces ~or the ban-
quet room. They have called out 200 seats which ~s probably a large
crowd for th~s ~acility~ The staff has taken into consideratlon the va-
cancy factor and the overlapping uses, and feel 40 spaces are needed.
Mr. Ferre~ra questioned the Commission as to the t~me he would submit h~s
parking layout to them for review, ~f just the construction of the deck
would be considered and not the overall parking~
Chairman Stewart stated it would be only In regard to the construction of
the deck for additional parking-
Director Warren asked that the specific design of the ramp to the east not
be approved at this time, and also questioned whether a reduction in set-
back for the easterly property line was being granted at th~s time~ The
Commission concurred that this reduction in setback would be considered at
the time the applicant is required to construct this deck~
MSUC (Adams-York) Approval of the revised plan as submitted to the Commis-
sion at this meeting, subject to the following:
1~ That such time as the use of the property is changed in any manner, the
parking provisions shall be reviewed in relation to the proposed park-
ing structure on the east property line,; the construction of said
structure shall be subject to setback regulations or shall be subject
to a variance request.
2. The specific design of ingress and egress to the ramp to the east is
not approved at th~s time; the final design will be subject to staff
approval. The final ramp design shall provide for future access to
a third level of parking.
Request for Approval of Sign for 7-Eleven Store at 698 H Street
Director of Plannlng Warren referred to the letter requesting approval of
an additional sign (4' x 8') to be temporarily used on the premises to
advertise the fact that liquor is being sold~ He reviewed the signs in
the area and the requirements of the "D" zone and questioned the need for
this size sign. They wish to erect this sign on a pole 5 feet from the
front property line. Approximately 2 years ago, the Commission approved
a reduction in setback from 25 feet to 5 feet for the construction of a
freestanding sign at th~s location. The problem confronting the Commis-
sion in this particular case is the inconsistency of the control over
the signs in this area; across the street from this location, development
would permit any sign conceivable- however, the Commission has control
over this property. Mro Warren ~n~icated that the sign would have to be
high enough to clear the traffic ordinance.
Member York commented that he would prefer to see a permanent sign con-
structed here that would be 3' x 4' wide and mo~e compatible with the area~
Member Adams felt he would rather see a temporary sign here for a period
of 60 days than a permanent one. Member Hyde agreed, remarking that it
would be unrealistic to approve a permanent sign rather than a temporary
Director Warren spoke of 5he enforcement problems in general~ It would
mean an increase of the so-called "policing" action to a much greater de-
~ree than that which the staff is now doing. Temporary signs are one of
the department's biggest problems; many signs in this area are out there
without permission. City Attorney Lindberg stated there was no easy
answer to this problem.
The Commission discussed the possibilIty of requiring a bond, so that these
signs would be taken down after the required period of time, such as those
required for political signs.
Mr. Warren suggested they find someway to enforce these conditions or
str~ke them out of the ordinance.
-15-
MSUC (Hyde-Adams) Approval of request subject to the following:
1~ The maximum size of the sign to be 2~ x 3'~
2. The sign to be erected for a period not exceeding 60 days.
Request for Deferral of Public Improvements Shopping Center at Garrett
and Center Street
The letter was read requesting deferral of the requirements of public im-
provements on Center Street until such time as the adjacent property
owners are ready to construct their portion of the improvements. Director
of Planning Warren stated this does not constitute a public hearing, but
in view of the fact that the staff is recommending denial of th~s request,
he requested this matter be continued to the next meeting and the applicant
notified so that he may be present.
Mrr Robert Miles, 392 E Street, co-owner of the adjacent property, stated
they need the area on Center Street for construction equipment and at the
end of this construction, they would join in and put in ~hese ~mprovements~
Mr. Warren informed Mr. Miles that this request does not involve the prop-
erty that he owns.
City Attorney Lindberg stated that in all fairness to the applicant, the
matter should be continued so that he can be present at the meeting
MSUC (Rice-Gregson) Matter be continued to the meeting of March 6, 1967o
Report on Zoning Study of ARea Between Castle Park H~gh School and First
Avenue
Director of Planning Warren briefly explained the significance of this
study and commented that the item was continued on the Council agenda to
the meeting of March 14, so there is a need for the Commission to hold a
hearing on this and send their recommendations to the Council prlor to
this meeting.
Chairman Stewart suggested th~s matter be set for hearing for the next
meeting.
Director Warren questloned whether it should be advertised for considera-
tion for R-3 zoning, or more restrictive since the staff is recommending
density control~
The Commission concurred it should be for just R-3, and that they would be
able to recommend density cont~ol~ should they des~re~
RESOLUTION NO. 454 Resolution of the C~ty Planning Commission Stating
MSUC (Rice-Hyde) Their Intent to Call a Public Hearing ~or March 6,
1967, to Consider Prezoning ~or that Area Between
Castle Park High School and F~rst Avenue
Resolution of Intention to Hold a Public Hearing to Consider Vacation of
a Portion of Whitney Street East on First Avenue
Planning Director Warren explained that a letter was received from the
property owners requesting that this portion of the street be vacated.
RESOLUTION NO. 455 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Stating
MSUC (York-Hyde) Their Intent to Call a Public Hearlng for March 6,
1967, to Consider Vacation of a Portion of Whitney
Street East of First Avenue
Request for Extension of Time on Variance Corner of 30th and Edgemere -
V. DeLuc~a
A letter from Mr. DeLucia was read in which he requested an extension of
time on his variance to March 16, 1967, in order that he would have ample
time to complete his project. He stated he was about 95 per cent completed.
RESOLUTION NO. 456 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Granting an
MSUC (Rice-York) Extension of Time on Variance No~ 66-21
Workshop Meeting
Director of Planning Warren discussed the next scheduled workshop meeting
which was set for Wednesday, February 22. He stated that because of the
projects and activities in the office, the staff finds it difficult to
be properly prepared for this meeting.
Chairman Stewart suggested this meeting be postponed to Monday n~ght, the
27th. Mr. Warren felt the staff would be better prepared for that date-
MSUC (York-Rice) Meeting be adjourned to the workshop meeting of February
27, 1967.
ADJOURNMENT
MSUC IYork-Rice) Meeting be adjourned to the workshop meeting of February
27, 1967 at 6:30 pfm., in the Administrative Conference Room, Civic
Center. Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
ie M. Fulasz
Secretary
-17-