Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1967/01/16 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA January 16, 1967 The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, Cali- fornia, was held on the above date at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, with the following members present: Stewart, Rice, Adams, Guyer, York, Hyde and Gregson. Absent: None. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, Assistant Planner Lee, City Attorney Don Lindberg, City Engineer Lane Cole and Assistant City Engineer Harold Gesley. STATEMENT The Secretary of the Commission hereby states that she dld post within 24 hours of adjournment, as provided by law, the notice for the adjourned meeting of January 4, 1967. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Guyer-Adams) Approval of minutes of January 4, 1967, as mailed. Director Warren and the Commission welcomed to the meeting the Political Science class of Southwestern College and their instructor, Mr. Pasqua. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont'd) VARIANCE - Henry F. Jahn - 98 and 102 Minot Avenue - Reduction in Rear Yard Setback 15' to 7'2" and Create a parcel which Would Contain Two Existing Dwelllings Director of Planning Warren stated this hearing was continued from the last meeting rn order for the staff to meet with the applicant to discuss the conditions of ap- proval. The applicant's request was for a reduction in rear yard setback from 15~ to 7'2" and to create a parcel which would contain two existing dwellings. The par- cel is being split into 4 lots and this request becomes a technicality that requires a variance. Mr, Warren reviewed the four conditions of approval declaring that he did meet with the applicant this past week and discussed them. The applicant ob- jected to the conditions indicating that the conditions were not pertinent to his request and that the Commission should consider this variance on its own merits, Mr. Warren then discussed the fact that the City does not have a lot split ordinance; if there were one, then the applicant would have to file a subdivision map for such a division of land and provide the street improvements, etc;,~.,D,irector Warren then submitted a plat noting that an undeveloped canyon running north and south lies just west of the applicant's property. Ultimately, some form of development can or will take place in this area, and wi th that in mind, the Engineering staff is recommend- ing that the conditions be imposed so that the requirements and standards of the City will be met, since there may be a number of lot splits. Mr. Warren submitted a plat showing how these lots could be developed, Mr. Lane Cole, City Engineer, explained the need for the addltional 3' right-of-way, stating that this will give them 46' rlght-of-way, or a 36' travelway which provides two 8' parking lanes and two 10' running lanes, Presently, Minot Avenue has a 40' right-of-way - 30' from curb to curb, Mr, Cole added that the present City standards do not allow them to approve this type of subdivision; problems would arise when you have two vehicles parking on either side of the street. The Commission discussed the requirement for sidewalks. Mr. Cole remarked that they do anticipate the need for sidewalks on each side of this street, and that it would be feasible even though there Is a steep slope here. City Attorney Lindberg commented that this matter has not been thoroughly discussed with the property owner; the staff has had a conference with the appllc.~nt together with the City Eng[~eer', and tho:L~"gh Jt is not the preference of the City Attor~qey to deem wh~t ~s reasonable ~nd what is not reasonable, he believes, in th~s particular c~se~ that the facts are clear: that the d[v[s[o~ of land itself may warrant req~re~t for ded[cat]o~ and ~mprovement for this D Street right-of-way; howe~er, to attach those cond]t]ons to the grant~ng of th~s v~rience is unreasonable a~d does ~ot relate to the priv~leg~ requested h~r~. Mr. L~ndberg felt: th~s matter n~ight stimulate the Comm]ss~o~ ~n~o t=~k~r:g s~e ~ctlon ~n the near future in approving ~'~t spl~t ord~r~a~c~. ~e f~rth~r added that the ~mpos~tion of thes~ types of co~d~~ tlor~s ~s dec~ded in the C~]fosr'~ jurisdiction ~:nd other jur~sdict~ons, rel~t:~ve to thls type of -~ va, ,~ ~e is unre~so~=ble, end the need has been readily spelled out by the staff, but t~s ~s no~ th~ prope~ forum to entertain the ~mposlt~on of thes~ conTM d~t~o~s. I~s ~e~r:g the t~me and place as ~dvert~sed, the continued public hearing ~s re- ope ned. ~e ~y ,J~h~, the appi~c~r,t, declared there w~s no change contemplated e~t:her the ex~st~g stp ~cture or of the use of the land. The reaso~ for requesting v~r~ar~ce w~s just e tech-~c~i~t% that c~ up when he spl~t h[s Jot. Mr. J~s~n tF.~t he talked to h~s ne~ghSor, Mr. F'ue~te~ who ow~zs the Jot to the south ~nd ~sked k~m if he would be w]l(~rg to dedicate 3 feet for rlght-of-way. He declared that Mr. F~ente strongly objected to this proposal indTc~ts~ng ~]~et [t would be t~k~ng e~way too much of ~s Member ~ork quest]oned Mr. ?~'~ abo~t tF~e ~]~ po~=~,]e fotura sale of the tffree lots. Mr. J~n deck,red he had a b~yer for Lot 2, end presently ~s no pls~s t~ sell the remaining '~ots = he wo~ld st]]] ret~[n ownership of them. T~ere being no further c~ment, either for or ag~st= the h~ring wes declared closed. ~ ' .~.e Com~clss,'c~ :~ev~ewed t~e Tequest, and Member uuyer ~oted t~s~t the ex c~pt~onal c~rcumst'~ces ~:'~'/ m~:st f~d could be related to t~e fact that th~s rn~t ~er w~s brought "~" C~:lrman Stewart ~:ske~ what '~ c ~ro~: was csed in dete~m~r~ng which way t~,~s fro~ted. Mr. Warre~ ,-~?,ted ~ ~.,]d be Eased on the gremtest depth e~d also ~e facL t:~=~t Min~>t ;treat ~s pa cd street; however, it co~Id possibly be either ~ember York re~,=~rked ~',~'~' a~: ~ I~st: meeting be mede s~veral c~::ts p~.rt~ :~,~g' to long t~rm~ r~geT'd!e~ss of w[',et~r or not a street: ~h~ch is being developed ]n c~,~E~g ~r :s':reet~ for ~ri~cF~ edd~t~on~'~ ~mprovements should ~.tso be substandard oec~use they ate co~t:iguous to street~ that-:~r~ substend~rd~ any more th~n they would be th~i~ p:'~ rca to gr:~-~t: ~ [afdc:es for ~"...bst~d~rd ~truc~ures j:st bec~u:~ t~ey' ~ s~gges~e~ Mr. ~meh~ ~o~nt~r~ly dedicate the 3° r~gh.t~cf=~y for that p~rt~cu~ar lsat w~'~ch r'equlr~s th~ v~r~.:nce ~n order t~ s~ve th~ d~ty e lot of r~d tape~ Mr. Jahn stated he would rather not dedicate this 3I rlghtiof-way, but rather have the Commission consider the request on its own merits. If he did dedicate this 3", it would bring the front of the house too close to the street and it would jeopardize the three large trees presently ~n the right-of-way. G~rector Warren read the staff's flndings. MSUC (York-Rice) Approval of varlance request. F~ndings are as follows: That the strict application of the zoning regulations of requirements would re- sult in particular d~fflculties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the regulations. This property can be developed ~n a manner more satisfactory to the City by facing these lots on "D~ Street. This will permit the development of otherwlse unusable land and, unless the variance is granted, the proposed lot split cannot be accomplished. 2. That there are except]onal circumstances or cor,d]t]ons applicable to the prop- erty involved or to the intended use or development of the property that do apply generally to other property ~n the same zone or neighborhood. The build- lng exlst~ng o~ Parcel #2 ~s ex~stlng 7o2"from the northerly property line and ~s presently designated as a s~de yard. Because of the proposed spl~t, th~s parcel will have frontage on a d~fferent street and thus this l~ne becomes the rear yard. The existing corner lot presently has two separate slngle-fam~ly dwellings on ~t - approval of th~s variance would eliminate this nonconforming s~tuatlon and sObstitute another, so no additional nonconformity is being created. No physlcal change in the location of the existing structures is being made ~ the only changes proposed are alterations to property ~ines. 3. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or ~njurlous to property or improvements in such zone or neighborhood ~n which the property is located. (The applicant's proposal will not affect existing structures.) 4. ?hat the granting of ~ v~r~ance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The scope of the variance is such that it will have no effect o~ the ~e~r~l Pla~. PU~L!IC i:!~RHNC <C~n~:"d): Proposed Ordinance Establishing an i-R Zone (Research- Ind~strlal) D~recto~ of Pla~;~i~g Warren reviewed the matter, stating that at the prev~obs meet- ~g the poblic !!~ing was opened and the text of the proposed ordinance was ex- pla~nedo Th~s ~s the new proposed zone lifted from the comprehensive zo~dng ordi= ~ance now u~rder study b~ the Commiss~on. Those present at the meeti~g ~d~cated that they o~d ~ot receive ~ copy of the proposed ordinance and w~shed to sturdy ~t; therefore, a ~o~y o~ ~n~ ordinance was distributed to those presenL and then mailed to other org~n]zat~ons [n the City. Thls be[~g the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. There belng no comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. -3- Member Adams rem~nded the Comm~sslon of the previous case that brought about th:s hemr~ng~ th~t: he voted '~no'~ when the request came to rezone that property in the souther~ part of the C~ty to M~i. He sald it was very fitting now that they have thls proposed I=R zone~ that th~s zo;~e be adopted and placed on this property since ]t is an indL:str]al zone wF:ich will be compatible to the adjacent res[dential area. D~rector Warren commented that only the text of the proposed ordinance is being con- sldered tonlght, arid not the appt]cat]o~ oF such. There ~s a deadline to meet con- earning getting this to the Council for adoptlon, however, since the Council did cot:tinge the m~tter of rezonir~g the property in quest]on and wished to have the Com® mlss~or~, in the interlm per]od~ consider the adoption of the [-R zone. If thls zone is ~ot ~dopted, the Counclt may act to consider the pending request to rezone the property to M=t~ hewever, )f thls zone )s ~dopted, the Council may file the orlg)nal app/ic~tioK and conslder this proposed zoning. Member ~uyer commented or~ the !-R zone= statlng that he feels it is necessary since there ~re s few areas in t:~;e City that ~re not suitable for the M-) or M-2 zone~ th)s zone would ~lso give t~e C~ty greater flexibility in this type of zoning. Mem= bar York d[scussed a point ~r~ the proposed ord)r:ance relating to the maximum ~rea of signs w~)ch he read: ~that the aggregate of all signs, except temporary real estate slg~s= for ~ny one establishment shall not exceed one double-faced freestand- ing s)gn not to exceed one squ~re foot for each lineal foot of frontage to a maximum of f)fty sqcare leeK.'; Mr. York re~rked that a 50 foot building divided into five businesses could end up hav)ng five ~0~ freestanding signs in front of this partic~ ul~r property. D]rector Werrer~ felt this hypothetical case would be unlikely with ~;~dustr']el development. Member' York asserted that such a building could possibly have three stories ~nd end up with 30 establishments. Director Warren declared that even st)Il, they ere left with 50 feet of frontage. Member York maintained that the way the ordinance is written, it could end up with four or five signs. C)ty Attorney Lindberg stated that if this wording is not clear, and if the Commis- sion interpreted [t ~s ssc~, then others would do so also, and he suggested tile wording be changed. The Commission d)sc..ss=d pro~sbillt[es of coral,s)on relating to thls s~ateme~t. C?eirme~ Stewart ;;;zg~ssteJ ~t ~ llmlted~ and st~ced as such, to either' one or two slgr~s. ~irector W~'re~ dec!~r'~d that for ar~ establ]shme~t hav)ng 50 feet of front- age ~ en I-R zor,e sh.~;ld be lira;ted to one s!gs:. Member York agreed. City Attor;~ey L]~d: f;'g s.;3ges~:ed t~e following addJtion: "Said signs snzt! not ex~ ceed 50 sq~re fe~; ~f slgr:s %r ~sny frost,ge of 50 l[near feet for any pre~i;ises." Member ~lyde asked f~; ~ dlsti~c~:ie;~ between the M~l and the proposed rector Werre;' re~d the text ©f t~6 r~w proposed ordinance not)rig the differences between this s~d t?,e M-I ze~:. Me~ber York asked if the ~-g zone would replace the M-I zone; Director Warren ~n- die, ted that presently it would r~Oto City Attorney ~]ndber9 explained that the C~ty ~s try~n9 to attract a m~re t~cated ~ndustry and in order to do so, it m~st have ~ore refined zon]n9. They are ~ot t~lkir:9 ~bout steel m~lls a~ymore - presently, there is no zone that would re strict thls use ~ ~reas next to res~de~t]al developments. -4= M$~C [~'ork~Adams) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to R['SO%dTiGN biD. 443 City Council the Adoption of an I-g Zone Fiqd~gs be as fo~low~: 1. Tk~s ~ew zone w~ll provide ~n environment exclusively for and conducive to the development and protection of moder,~, ~3rge~scale administrative, research, and special,zed ~if~ct:~r ~g organizations, a~l of a non-nuisance type. 2. Th~s r~ew zone w~ p~ov~de for limited industrial uses in certain are&s w~ere previously 9eneralJ [~dustry w~s considered inc~patible. Appro~s~ of A~exat[o~ = ~;..hy~s Sweetwater Valley A~nexation No. 2 Director of Pla~n~9 Warren submitted a p]~t exp]alnin9 the location of the proposed ~n~exat:~o~ ~'s 9e[n9 north of Bonita Road, west of Bonita Hesa Road. ~d between the proposed J~]and Freeway and the recently approved Hahy~s Sweetwater Valley A~exa- t:]or,. ~t wouJd become ~ county ~s]and between the City limits arid the proposed free way r ]ght=of-way. If the freeway r[ghtt-of-~wsy is purchased ~s contemp]ated~ e~thou9h such ]s not ~:ssured~ th~s srqa~ parce~l of ]arid would be Jeft. The appJ~cants propose to purchsse this area a~d w]sh to h~ve ~t a~exed to the City; they wish to progress ~s quickly as poss~b]e with their deve]op~nt. Hember York d~scussed the two p~rce[s, asking if they were under separate ~nersh~p. Director W~rre~ ~nd[c~ted that they were but that the applicant ~ntends to purchase tr~[~ smell parcel ~d develop ~t ;:~s o~e u~it~ Hember York questioned whether ]t could be contingent upon it becom~9 one p~rce] with the parcel already a~exed to the City or could ]t e~d up being a small triangle under a d~fferent be~r~9 ~emd~ocked ~s far es heir9 ]~ the C]t:y ~5 concerned. City Attor~e'~ {~dber9 stated there was ~ slight poss~bJlity of this be]E9 }l::~d'~oc~ed, but ]n th~s ]nstance, we are deaJ]n9 with a total deve~;~p~nt a:~d ]t]s esse:t~ ~o~' th~s to~_~'~ devel]opment that this property be ~xexed for the type of deve:~op~'e?t they sre propose,,9. M;~C (Cu~e~'~'R~e' Reco~,~e~d Approva~ of M~hy~s Sweetwater Valley No. 2 A Jette~ wss ,r6,d from Mr. C. ~;. W~ ~, As~:;~sta~t Cashier, San Diego Trust & Sav~,-~gs 3~nk, ~sk~ng ,or ~omm~s..;o~ ~pprov~ of a frees~rM~n9 sign to be e'"ected at the ~rtgwest tort:er '~f tge b~'~k ~'Jd~r9 ~n the Shopping Center. Ne explained t~t t~e s~g: ~ ~: :.~ ~]a~,~u~ed fro, n [~e ~r,~er'ior, but wJ~i have no mov~.~9 parts or finishing l~ghts, it: would be two=s~ded, 3"9" high by 6~6'' wide, and the d~st~nce from t~me 9rouod to the bottom of the sign would be 20~. Mr. W~ll eXp]alned the r,eed fo~ the s~9~ ~ndlc~ti~9 that their present signs are inadequate for identlf~~ g~ect:or o¢ P'g¢?~g ~erre;~ submitted a sketch of the proposed sfgn noting the memsfons ~f the ~,~g~, ~e exp]~ed that the applicant ~eeds the approval of Eomm~ss~or: fo~ t:h~s s~g~ urder the requ~re~nts of the suppie~ntal n¢~ zone u~der which they are ~l~ed ;~ Bsx~um o~ ~0 square feet of s~gn aree. Nr, ~arre: that the s~9~ ~i p~o~ect ibodt ~ feet over the roof of the bank Me~ber h;yde a.ciKed ]f t!'.~re were .'~ny ot,ke':' s]grs in th~s shopping center that wou~d be: o.~mps, r~h. Jle t~ t~ proposed s~gno Member Warre~ noted the large liquor st,~re: ~3t pre~.:'¢~y ex~;t~r;g ~r,d t~e only other ~rge one would be the brick pl~rter :~g~'~ w~th t~e r~e of Bor;~ta V~lL~ge on Mr. C~rk W~'~I~ r'ep~e:e'zt~rg ~he B~r~k, d]~cc~;~ed the ~eed for more ]dent~f~cat]on Me~e~ fo~k re.~ked t~.:t pe. rk.:~p.~ the o~her t:en~:rr, ts ~n th~s Shopping Center wog~d fee~ the need f~r '~:ore ~de~.~f~cc~t]o,r~ ~r~.d ;r~e rem~:-~ded the Comm[ssJon of the sign p'~rc~p]er d~cussed after the ~-g' zone public hearing. Member Ad~,,"~ dec:~r-red th;~ th~'s ~em~ type of request wa, s den~ed the other tenants ~r, t.~e Sh~pp~ g g~=rite% ~n:d th:=~ ~t would be a f~[f~t,~Ne to 9r~nt this request, sdded [*~ westo,~ .... iy ods' of ~'rr~r~e~' ~d an ~ffront to the people of Bon~t~ thet want Me~nber F ce c)mme~-~ted th3t ~e ,,~,:~s ~mre of the bsr~k bu]ld~n9 on this s~te before g :;. they do h~ve sre ~r] very good t~ste. He oppo:::ed [o emi :'.~;w : 9' ; .?'ct w:.~d :~..':~9e the cb:~r~c:ter of the shopping center. Cr;3',rmszq 3tew's,;r't remerked t~t tt[s shopping certer csters to the local t o~1 ~t woul:d detr',~,¢t f~o~ iq,;: 9~er~ ch, arscter ~nd the purpose of a shopping ~S:.C ~Ad¢*,¢=g ¢e; .¢,,i,~ of :]~ r:z delineated ~n the ]e~ter submitted, based on . - ~ 60mp;.Jbie wi the ch.~r~cter of the Shopping Center ~d ~o ~ ;~:r' F~,~e::~.,;t ~,' s~,~l.~r' reque~t:~ f~ ~ other tenants in the 3e;tter. [;:e (e *,:' :bzz~:J ft.~e ~- ~dentlf[c~t~on s~gn wh~ch¢ if deemed necess'ery u.c, u. :3f .32:;9 ¢ .~*:' 9-:e~; ;he '~eed fg:r ~nd~vidual 3[9r~ et t~ curb. .... ,:e.c~o w~.rrrt, r: .:dded that a public he~¢'~n9 ~:e u.teJ ~h~t th~; t~,;'f~e' reqae;t' ~u'~d ~nvo'~ve: ~ :Cma 1] cu~-de.-sac betwee-~ Third Ch~4;~: 3;te'~rt ;;~99e~ted [he :;t:~¢f ~a-~e up w~th ,~ r~ew na~ for the street~ rector ~.~,-¢( i d~.~ted t:L,t the staff ~as i¢~I opposed to tb~ r, ame ~;uggested, but fetf ~t : ,.).~d,,. t be =dve~ .l:;.e:d ¢;c:~, ,d ~,her ~ame~ could be considered. (.~:;r~r~ .,~,: . te"~t the ~m~ "~., should be related to those ~n the area, as F, ESDI_.gTIt~N NO. ~+44 Resolute, on of the City Plannlng Commission Stating M.~UC (Guyer-Hyde) Intent to Call a Public Hearing for February 6, 1967~ to Con~der a N~ Change for Palomar Drive To Be Se, t for ~ear~n~ - Proposed Specific Plan L~nes for Tidelands Aven~e and "E Street )~re;ctor of P]ano~g War~en explained that th~s was back again before the Co~:s~on ~6ca~se ~t wa~ determined at the Counc~ hearing on January 10, 1967, that ~mproper noLJf~cr<L~on wes g~veq co~cer~g the paaJ~c notices. It was the opinion of the C~ty Attorney th'~t th~s be returned to the Commlss~or, and readvert~sed for a~other pub~ ~c: hear ?ng. RESD"_gT~ON NO. 445 Resolution of the City Planning Commiss,~on Stating Their MS~C (Gregso~-Adams) I~tent to Call a Public Hearing for February 6, 1967, to Consider the Proposed Specific Plan L~r~es For and "E" Street Jo~t Council ~ Plan~ Commission Heet~ng - January 31~ 1967 -' 7:~0 D~rector of P~a~n~g W~r6,. ~tated that a requ6st has been ~de to the C~ty Co~c~ t~ c~der h,=v~g q~arter'~y ~etings w~th the F~a~nlng Co~i~o~. ~he f~rst ~f ~ch meet~g~ k~s bee~ scheduled by the Co~,c~l for Tuesday, Jar~ary 3~. Hember Greg~o~ s~ ~6 fa~d to see ~F~at co, ad be accomplished by th~s pa: m6et~r;g a~d that he was ~ppr6h~s~ve of its outcome. He would prefer to have ~ work~",op ~et~r,g -~ ~.ot a pubr~c hearing. Cha~rma~ Stewart sa~d he fe~t such joint ~et~ngs would be beneficial ~,~ce qu~te f~w subjects could be d~c~ssed; however, he is concerned about what he fe~ would take p~ace. Member York ~nd~cat:ed t~t properly handled, ~t could he, ye ~',ome g~o~d effe~:t;~. ~ ~-.;~.ed ~f ther~ woc~ld b~ ar~ agenda set up. Ad~r~:~':~- .,~ or the M=~yor bu~ would do so before th~ meet~r~g. ~e fe~ t~r~ would be ~,~me benefit to these me6t~ngs because of the apparent lack of commdr~ca~ t~on pr~'.;~'~tl~ e~st:~ng be~,eeq the Comm~o~ and t:he Council. ~e ~dd~d ~t wo~'~d be w~i~ to ~d_cet:~ the [:a~;-,c~ as to wh~t the Commission ~s try~rg to do. C~y A~:to~y L]~:oberg r~oted :~t nothing specific will b~ determlned~ d~c~ded o~ con- ~dered b'~. the Cou,~c~l ~t th~ forma~ ~:"r.g~ at most, ~t w~,l be ar~ ~nr~rme~ d~v~d~i~ ~o make ~ts ow,~ rec~me:~det~ons to the Council. ~.~e da:re :~ ~he m~et~ng wa~ discussed and the Member~ indlceted they would be Oral [o~?':,,¢ ~et~ors - Jo~:ph W~l~o-~, ~542 M~rl Aveou~ Mr. Joseph W~lson, ~542 Marl Avenue, stated that he was denied a zone variance at Commission h~ar~r~g of 2anuary 4~ ~967. He constructed a patio in violat~o~ of ~etback ~'equ]rements. Mr~ W~"~on d~scuss6d ~n d~ta~l his ex~st~ng con~ttructio'-, end tFe ~moc,,~t of work w~ch would be ~ntailed ~n reconstructing it to ~et t~e zon~r~g requirements', and asked the Comm~s~on to reconsider his request. Mem~,~r Adams st&t~d that the ['omm~?~on was aware of the work that would be ~r~vo~ved, a:qd ~gg6~ted ~o Mr. W~on c6rta~n modifications that could b~ made. C~ty L ~ndberg stated trat ~f the Commission d~d want to con~der th~s matt~, they wou~d have to ~o~d a~oth~r -7- M~mber Adams opposed this, remarking that nothing has changed in this situation = ~t w~s clearly a violation of the ordinance and that there were no exceptional circumI stances involved. Member York commented that ~t was just another case asking the Commission to grant a variance to make something legal. D~rector Warren reminded the applicant that he has still time to appeal this decision to the City Council. Mr. W~lson declared he wou~d not appeal and discussed the fact that the 3uilding ~nspector, upo~ taggirg him for this violation, suggested he apply for th~s variance. TEe Commission then d~scussed the po$~t~on of the Building inspectors in telling these people to apply for a variance to make their v~olat~ons legal. Chairman Stewart re~ marked that these inspectors ~©u;d ~nform the violators that the variance could be denied° D~rector Warre~ e~p~i~ed that the ~spectors point out the vlolations to the ~ome owner~ and they, ~n turn, a;w~y~ ask what a~teraatives they have; in these inI ~tances, t~e inspectors w~ll ~xp~ the variance procedure° ~'he Commission concurred tha~ they wou~d ~ot want to reconsider the matter° Workshop Meet~nq Member York suggested havi,~g a workshop meeting to go over th~s new proposed C-V zone before the February 6 meeting. Member Rice suggested it be held after the joint meeting with the Council, as them there would be more to discuss. The Commisslo~ discussed several dotes and agreed that the night of the 30th would be agreeable, and that a dinner meet~rg should be held to also discuss changes in the draft of the proposed zoning ordinance. 0~rector Warren was asked to set th~s up ~s to t~me and place and notify the Commlss~Ono League of California Cities Member Adams ~sked aSout t~e next meet~g of the League of California Cities. 0~rec- tot Warren indJcsted that ~t wo~ld be heJd Fr~day~ t~e 20th. He asked the Members to cs~l the Secretary if they w~shed to make a reservation. AD.!O3RNMENT MS(IC (York~R~ce) Meeting ad]our:r~ed s~e d~e. Meet~:;9 adjourned at 8:30 p.mo Re.~pe~::~:fully submitted, Jennie M. Fulasz Secretar/