HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1965/04/19 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
April 19, 1965
The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista,
California, was held at 7 P.M., Monday, April 19, 1965 in the Council Chamber,
Civic Center, with the following members present: Stevenson, Stewart, Comstock,
Johnson, Millar, Adams, and Guyer. Absent: None. Also present: Director of Plan-
ning Warren, Assistant Planner Terrell, City Attorney Lindberg, and Principal
Engineer Harshman.
STATEMENT
The Secretary of the Commission hereby states that she did post within 24 hours of
adjournment, as provided by law, the order of the Commission for the adjourned
meeting of April 5, 1965.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Comstock-Adams) Approval of minutes of April 5, 1965, as mailed.
VARIANCES
PUBLIC HEARING: (Cont'd) Orrin & Pearl Larsen - 4100 Camino del Cerro Grande -
Six Foot High Fence in Front Setback
The application was read in which a request was made for permission to erect a
six-foot high fence to within 8 feet of the property line along Calle Escarpada.
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location and the topo-
graphy of the property. This matter was continued from the last meeting because
the applicants were not present. The applicants wish to follow the top of a bank
to screen a swimming pool in their rear yard and are required by City Code to
either enclose the pool or the back yard with a fence.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Member Johnson asked about an existing chain link fence.
Mr. Orrin Larsen, the applicant, stated he does now have a chain llnk fence which
follows the setback line which would be replaced. His proposed fencing would not
interfere with any vehicular or pedestrian view since his property is located on
top of a hill and he further stated his reasons for wanting the fence in the
setback.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
Following discussion, the Director noted that the variance would be for the fence as
requested and would not allow other construction in the setback.
MSC (Comstock-Johnson) Variance be approved subject to the following condition:
1. The fence to be of a solid wood material and to be constructed in accordance
with the plans submitted to a point opposite the northwest corner of the existing
house.
Further, findings be as follows:
1. There are practical differences and unnecessary hardships within the meaning
of Ordinance No. 398 as amended which would result in the strict compliance
of the provisions of said ordinance.
2. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to the property
herein involved or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to
property or class of uses in the same zone. This lot is a corner lot and
has a different relationship to the street than an ordinary flat lot does.
If the fence followed the 15 foot setback line, an area which would be diffi-
cult to maintain would be left at the top of the bank.
3. Granting this variance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial
property right of the applicant. Denial of this variance would cause the
applicant to maintain an area outside the fence which because of topography
would be neither usable nor aesthetic.
4. Granting this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property improvements in the zone or district in
which said property is located, since the fence would sit at a considerable
elevation above the street. The fact that a high bank already exists along
the property line seems to somewhat diminish the intent of the setback.
A discussion followed whereby Member Adams challenged the alleged exceptional
circumstances stating this lot was the same as the other lots in the area. He
remarked that the Commission had adopted a policy whereby they could reduce side
yards to lO feet, and here the applicant is asking for 8 feet. Member Adams felt
the exceptional circumstances should be that the corner lots are entitled to a
narrower setback and a minimum of 10 feet is adequate.
Director Warren indicated that a lot the size of this one is seldom given a 10 foot
setback, that 15 feet was the minimum.
Vice-Chairman Stewart disagreed with Member Adams declaring the topography here
does present exceptional circumstances that do not apply to the other lots in the
area. The Applicant would have a great deal of property that would be difficult
to maintain.
The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Members Comstock, Johnson, Stevenson, Millar, Guyer, and Stewart
NOES: Member Adams
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC HEARING: (Cont'd) John & Suzette McLeod - East of Walnut~ South of San Diego
Gas & Electric Company's Right-of-Way - Reduction of Rear Yard Setback
A letter was read from the applicant requesting the hearing be continued to the
next meeting in order that he may be given more time to revise his building plans.
MSUC (Comstock-Stewart) The hearing be continued until the meeting of May 3, 1965.
PUBLIC HEARING: Chula Vista Sta:r News - Rear of 422 Church Avenue - C use in R-3 Zone
The application was read in which a request was made to use a garage located at the
rear of 422 Church Avenue for the performance of a light press work.
-2-
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, adjacent
land use and zoning. He stated this garage was across the alley from the applicant's
_ newspaper business, and is in an R-3 zone. The newspaper business with printing
presses is a C-2 use; however, the use designation of this particular requests
depends on the applicant's explanation of the work. The garage is approximately
15'x20' and is a one and one-half garage. It is not now being used for parking; the
owner is using his yard for his parking area.
Vice-Chairman Stewart asked where the owner proposed to park, if he was willing to
give up the garage. Director Warren indicated he couldn't answer that, but perhaps
the applicant could.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mrs. Mildred Blakely, 425A Third Avenue, stated she lives directly across the alley
and has a petition from all the neighbors protesting this use. Since ~ .... i~ a
problem of parking in this alley would occur, she decided to talk to Mr. Blankfort,
owner of the newspaper, about the request. He assured her it would be a light
operation - no noise, working only 5 or 6 hours a week strictly for their own use -
no outside jobs and an attemp~would be made to solve any parking problems.
Mrs. Blakely declared the neighbors would be in favor of this proposal providing
these statements were imposed as conditions of approval. She would also suggest
that the doors to this garage be kept closed~uring the press operation.
City Attorney Lindberg stated the conditions were appropriate, since they could be
necessary for protecting the neighbors' property rights. This is a variance from
the basic zoning ordinance and if the variance is to be granted, such conditions
could be imposed.
Mr. Rolan Robele, co-owner of the Star-News, stated the business hasn't done any
outside job printing in the last 6 or 7 years, nor do they intend to do any now.
The work involves two small job presses which they use for their forms and stationery.
Mr. Robele further stated that the garage would have to be modified somewhat - some
electrical work, toilet facilities, etc., before they would be able to operate from
it. He stated they would be willing to vacate the garage at any time the property
is converted to R-3 use and the garage is needed.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
Vice-Chairman Stewart commented that the use was residential, and the owner was giving
up parking that was required by ordinance. He could see no grounds for the variance
as no hardship can be found here.
Chairman Stevenson felt it was a challenge for the Commission to find exceptional
circumstances here; it will be an expansion of commercial use into an R-3 zone.
Member dohnson reviewed the conditions set forth by Mrs. Blakely and remarked that
he would be in favor of the request with these stipulations.
Chairman Stevenson cautioned that it would be setting a precedent for any business
abutting an alley to do the same thing.
City Attorney Lindberg commented on the precedent setting. He stated the Commission
-- should stick to the merits of the case; if proper findings were made in this case,
they could, perhaps, be found in the next ten cases, but their decision should not
necessarily bind them to a precedent.
-3-
MSC (Guyer-Stewart) Variance be denied based on the fact that no exceptional
circumstances, as delineated in the ordinance, could be found to justify granting
the request.
The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Members Guyer, Stewart, Comstock, Stevenson and Adams.
NOES: Members Johnson and Millar
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC HEARING: Warren Thomas - Southwest Corner of "H" Street at Oaklawn -
Setback Reduction
The application was read in which a request was made for reduction in front yard
setbacks in order to erect signs and pumps for the proposed service station, as
follows: on "H" Street - 25 feet to zero, and on Oaklawn Avenue - 20 feet to 1 foot.
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, adjacent
land use and zoning. He explained that at the time of the rezoning, the setbacks
were left at 20 and 25 feet to assure proper building setback, but it was probably
assumed that a sign would be placed here. The applicant is now ready to go ahead
with the service station and is requesting these setback reductions to allow for
certain signs and lighting fixtures.
Chairman Stevenson commented that in the past, the Commission has always favored
a 5 foot setback rather than the zero.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Ray Powell, representing the Shell Oil Company, stated that Mr. Thomas was
building this service station for Shell. As to the setback requests, he felt they
were not unreasonable; however, if it was the desire of the Commission for them to
maintain a 5 foot setback, they would be willing and able to do this. This would
not work a hardship on them; they would request, however, that the price signs be
permitted to set on the zero setback, to keep them out of the way of cars. Mr. Powell
added that the five foot setback indicated where the pole is to be located; their
sign rotates on this pole and will be extended over the base of the pole.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
Member Adams felt there was no difficulty in granting this request; he would prefer
they maintain a 10 foot setback; however, he will go along with the 5 foot setback.
MS (Adams-Comstock) Variance be approved subject to the following:
1. A minimum of 5 feet be maintained for the setback on both "H" and Oaklawn.
2. No moving or flashing signs be allowed.
Member Comstock withdrew his "second" on the motion based on the fact that he felt
this rotating sign should be allowed. It is a slowly moving sign designed to attract
the moving traffic; he would be against the garish signs that frequently flash off
and on along thoroughfares,
Director Warren commented that the new proposed zoning ordinance would eliminate these
moving and flashing signs throughout the whole city, The new ordinance deals
-4-
restrictively with signs; they are now completely out of control along the
thoroughfares and are defeating their purpose. As for this sign, Director Warren
added, he could see no need for the rotation since it was brilliant enough to
attract without rotating.
MSC (Adams-Johnson) Variance be approved subject to the following:
1. That all signs and lighting fixtures be required to set back from the property
line a minimum of 5 feet; that only the signs requested are approved.
2. That no moving or flashing signs be allowed; that any lighting be designed to
reflect away from any residential property.
Further, findings be as follows:
1. There are practical differences and unnecessary hardships within the meaning
of Ordinance No. 398 as amended which would result in the strict compliance
of the provisions of said ordinance.
2. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to the property
herein involved or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to
property or class of uses in the same zone. Setbacks of 20 and 25 feet are
normally considered excessive in commercial zones; however, these setbacks
were left after the rezonlng to assure that buildings would be set back and to con-
trol what did occur along the street.
3. Granting this variance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial
property right of the applicant. Without the variance, the applicant is
deprived of the right to display signs in a manner allowed the majority of
property owners along this street.
4. Granting this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to the property improvements in the zone or district in which said
property is located. Similar setbacks do exist in the area.
The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Members Adams, Johnson, Guyer, Stewart, Stevenson, and Millar
NOES: Member Comstock (Not in agreement with the stipulation that the sign cannot
be a revolving one, but in agreement with the rest of the
motion.)
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC HEARING: General Maintenance~ Inc. - 698 "H" Street at Woodlawn Avenue -
Setback Reduction
The application was read in which a request was made for reductions in front yard
setback - on "H" Street from 20 feet to 9 feet and on Woodlawn Avenue from 25 feet
to 7 feet, for the erection of a free-standing sign for the Speedee Mart store.
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location and adjacent
land use. This is immediately adjacent to the last request - the Shell service
station. The same conditions and findings would apply to this request. Director
Warren suggested, however, that a conditim for landscaping be imposed whereby
the applicant would be asked to landscape and maintain that area between the parking
and the street.
-5-
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Don Smith, the architect for the store, stated no plans were drawn for land-
scaping; they were waiting to see the plans for the Shell service station first
so it would be consistent with theirs. Mr. Thomas has informed them that they
are now ready to go ahead with the landscaping, so they can now assure the Com-
mission that proper and sufficient landscaping will be provided. Mr. Smith then
discussed the request for the reduction in setback, stating the structure sets
back 25 feet, however, it is almost impossible to see the store until you are
directly in front of it.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
Member Adams felt the setback should be uniform with the other corner, to which
they just granted a 5 foot setback; other than that, he saw no difficulty in granting
the request.
MSUC (Comstock-Stewart) Variance be approved as follows: a reduction in front yard
setback on "H" Street from 25 feet to 5 feet and on Wood lawn Avenue from 25 feet
to 7 feet. Approval granted subject to the loll owl ng conditions:
1.That no moving or flashing signs be allowed, and that any lighting be designed
to reflect away from any residential property.
2. That the area between the parking and the street be landscaped and permanently
maintained; landscaping plans to be approved by the Director of Planning.
Further, findings be as follows:
1. There are practical differences and unnecessary hardships within the meaning
of Ordinance No. 398 as amended which would result in the strict compliance
of the provisions of said ordinance.
2. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to the property
herein involved or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to
property or class of uses in the same zone. Setbacks of 20 and 25 feet are
normally considered excessive in commercial zones; however, these setbacks
were left after the rezoning to assure that buildings would be set back and to
control what did occur along the street.
3. Granting this variance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial
property right of the applicant. Without the variance, the applicant is
deprived of the right to display signs in a manner allowed the majority of
property owners along this street.
4. Granting this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to the property improvements in the zone or district in which said
property is located. Similar setbacks do exist in the area.
The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Members ~Ir~:~ock,~e~t~¥~obns~~ Stevenson, s! Hi] la~ ~$~ and Guyer
NOES:
ABSENT: None
-61
PUBLIC HEARING: Stanley Zelechoski - 1030 Second Avenue - Rear Yard Setback
Reduction
The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction in a portion
of the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 16½ feet for the purpose of adding a
two-story addition to the home.
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location and explaining
that the setback was normally 20 feet; however, in their building plans, they find
that one corner of their house would protrude into this setback because of the
angle.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mrs. Stanley Zelechoski, the applicant, stated the addition was necessary because
of their growing family. This would be the only logical place to construct this
addition. If they cannot do this, they will be forced to sell their home and move
into another location.
Mr. Frank Ferreira, 3715 Putter Drive, questioned the need for the variance stating
that, as he understood the ordinance, the applicant could maintain an average depth
because of the irregular-shaped lot. If this were the case, there is no need for
the variance.
Director Warren suggested the matter be continued so that the staff can determine
if a mistake was made in accepting this application, and if so, a refund should be
made. City Attorney Lindberg stated if the staff finds there was no need for the
variance, action could be predicated on this and a refund made.
Member Comstock felt action should be taken on the variance rather than hold it
over.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
MSUC (Comstock-Johnson) Variance be granted and the staff study th~ request to
determine if a mistake has been made in accepting the application, and if so,
refund the applicant the cost of the application.
(Note: It has been determined since the hearing, that the variance request was
in order.)
AMENDMENTS TO ZONING ORDINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING: Architectural Review
Director of Planning Warren briefly reviewed the ordinance stating that this
ordinance includes a Board of Review consisting of five members: one an architect,
one a building contractor, and three members to be electors of the City. They shall
review the plans for all homes in subdivisions, multiple-family residences and any
others falling into the "D"zone. This ordinance gives administrative power to the
Planning Director to approve or disapprove any single-family residential building or
development (five or less). In case of disapproval by the Planning Director, the
decision may be appealed to the Board.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Member Johnson asked if there was any group feeling on this - whether the Commission
reached a point where they can say the community wants this.
-7-
Director Warren commented that, as is frequently the case, no comment has been
received. Interest seems to be much more wide-spread after enactment, when, no
doubt, an attempt to rescind the ordinance will be launched.
Mr. K. Niek Slijk, an interested citizen, remarked that creating an additional
commission would be another hurdle for the subdividers and contractors. He
suggested two more people, an architect and a building contractor, be added to the
Planning Commission instead, and that all such plans be reviewed by the Commission.
Member Comstock felt there would be no handicap to the developer, inasmuch as he
would generally have his plans and financing for this project set up i~efore coming
to the Commission; the Board of Review could consider his plans in a very limited
amount of time - not more than 20 days at the most and at the same time, plans for
the subdivision would be in process. On the other hand, an individual building
a single-family home for himself, would ha~eeverything ready to go since he will
not be bothering with bonds, street improvements, and the like; the waiting period
would be more of a detriment to him.
Mr. Myron Dalseth, contractor, stated he was chairman of the committee that re-
viewed the minimum floor area ordinance and proposed the sliding scale and this
architectural review ordinance. He could see no hardship involved as the Board
of Review would consider house plans simultaneously with subdivision developments.
Mr. Dalseth stated he was not given an opportunity to comment at the previous
meeting when the Commission went along with the Council's suggestion that the
900 square foot minimum requirement is necessary and should stay. Mr. Dalseth
felt more time should be given to studying this proposed ordinance.
City Attorney Lindberg stated it must be recognized that the community is verymuch
concerned with architectural review; it is basically a new concept nationally, and
it was hoped that by enacting the sliding scale now, more time could be taken to
create a good architectural ordinance, which should be considered separately.
Mr. Frank Ferreira, 3715 Putter Drive, developer, stated his objections to the
Board of Review. He felt trailer parks and apartments should come under this
review, not single-family homes.
Vice-Chairman Stewart reminded the Commission that at the last meeting, it was
stated that a public hearing should be held on this and then continued so that the
Commission can have a workshop meeting to discuss the public's comments and how
best to approach any revisions to the ordinance.
Chairman Stevenson stated that City Attorney Lindberg is scheduled to participate
in a panel on this subject on May 7 at the San Diego Planning Congress dinner meeting
at the Hotel del Coronado. He suggested the Commission attend this meeting and hear
this discussion.
Member Comstock commented on the lack of opinions from the public concerning this.
He felt the public should be given more responsibility in determining whether or
not they want this architectural control. He referred to the proposal he sent the
Director of Planning stating the City should be set up in districts and tM Board
of Review members selected one from each district. In this way, the person re-
presenting that district in which the Board is reviewing plans for development will
be able to state his district's feeling on it.
Mr. Ferreira remarked he was verymuch in favor of Mr. Comstock's proposal. He is
also in favor of tM "D" zone.
-8-
The Commission discussed the continuance of this hearing; they concurred they
would attend the May 7 meeting at the Hotel del Coronado and then have a workshop
meeting, having another public hearing on this on May 17. Director Warren informed
the Commission that he plans to be out of town at that time and would like to be
in on the next hearing.
MSUC (Guyer-Stewart) Public hearing be continued until the meeting of June 7, 1965.
SUBDIVISION: Virginia Terrace - Final Map
The Planning Director asked that this be eliminated from the agenda at this time.
Resolution of Intention to Prezone Bonita Cove Annexation No. 2
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan describing the location of the
proposed annexation and the problems involved in trying to annex this parcel. As
proposed, it would form an island in the County which would be illegal. This
annexation has been submitted to the Local Agency Formation Commission and the
staff is waiting for comments from this agency concerning the needed revision.
The Highway Division has indicated that the freeway alignment has been shifted west
through this property. The applicant has asked for an R-3 prezoning here; the
staff would recommend this but with the "D" zone attached. Prezoning to R-1 was
requested for the southerly portion, but the staff would recommend prezoning this
parcel to R-I-B-20.
Member Comstock questioned the width of the property. Director Warren stated the
property contained 6½ acres and was 196 feet wide. Member Comstock commented that
with 56 feet taken off for a street, it would leave a depth of 70 feet for each
lot. Director Warren said this was taken into consideration and it must be assumed
that development of this property would occur in conjunction with adjacent land.
RESOLUTION NO. 352 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Stating Their
MSUC (Comstock-Johnson) Intent to Call a Public Hearing on May 3, 1965, to Consider
Pre~oning Bonita Cove Annexation No. 2.
Request for Approval of Signs in Bonita Village Shopping Center
A letter was read from Mr. Charles Attal, Bonita Village, requesting permission for
the erection of four signs in the Village.
Director Warren explained their request and submitted sketches of the proposed signs.
Two free-standing signs would measure 4'x5' - one advertising the Bonita Village
Shopping Center and the other would advertise the La Pinata restaurant. A third
sign would advertise the Beauty Shop and would measure 3'x4'. The fourth sign would
be for the front of the La Pinata restaurant and measure 2'6" x 21'6". Director
Warren reminded the Commission this was in the "D" zone and each business is allowed
50 square feet of sign area plus one free-standing sign for the Village itself
measuring 50 square feet.
Member Johnson noted that two of these signs were to be erected on trees in the
Center and wondered if this would impair the growth of the trees any. Director
Warren said as far as the life of the tree, one sign would not do too much damage.
He reminded the Commission that not too long ago, they denied a free-standing sign
for the Bank.
-9-
Mr. Charles Attal, Bonita Village, stated that Mr. Pettit, owner of the Shopping
Center, has indicated that he will remove the brick sign structure in the Center
and install a much larger sign; this particular sign is quite low and cars parking
in front of it obstruct the sign. The only identification signs in the Village at
the present time is on the store fronts. These proposed free-standing signs would
give the businesses a little more identification to the vehicular traffic.
Member Comstock said he felt the request was premature; they should first delete
the brick sign structure before applying for a new sign. In view of the fact
that they turned down a free-standing sign for the Bank, Member Comstock thought
it unfair to grant these other free-standing signs. He would, however, go along
with the sign for the front of the restaurant since they do not have a sign on
their marquee. He added that this Center would never become a regional shopping center,
not even a community shopping center; it will always be just a convenient shopping
center and does not need signs to attract transient traffic.
Member Adams suggested the free-standing signs be denied and the matter continued
until the applicant can design a free-standing sign for the front of the Center
delineating all the businesses in the Village, and that at that time, the brick
sign be deleted.
Director Warren cautioned the Commission that approval of the large La Pinata
restaurant sign would be the only sign this restaurant will be permitted to have
because of it size. Mr. Attal remarked that Mr. Pettit is now dealing with a super
market to come into the Center, and for this reason, there is no time table set
up as to when the brick sign will be taken down.
MSUC (Stewart-Comstock) Approval of the 2'6" x 21'6" sign to be erected on the
front of the La Pinata restaurant. Denial of the request for the three free-
standing signs with the understanding that at the time the present brick sign is
to be taken down, the Commission will consider one free-standing sign for the
Village whlch will delineate the businesses in the Village.
R~quest to Allow Commercial Worm Garden as Home 0ccupation
A letter was read from Carroll W. Minor and Charles E. Taylor requestinguthey be
allowed to operate a commercial worm garden at 320 Prospect Court as a Home Occupation.
Director Warren remarked that because of the nature of the request, the ataff was
reluctant to grant this permit and asked the applicant to appear before the Com-
mission describing the proposal, seeking specific approval from the Commission.
The staff did contact the Health Department and they indicated there should be no
health problems.
Mr. Charles Taylor, 1179 Oxford Court, one of the applicants, described the operation.
They will have the worms in beds measuring 3 feet by 16 inches deep. The worms are
fed natural fertilizer, peat moss, etc. These will be temporary beds until their
business expands at which time they would put in concrete beds. The fertilizers
used will be cow manure, rabbit pellets, etc. Member Comstock asked if they con-
sidered organic feedings since the natural fertilizer would have an offensive smell.
Mr. Taylor stated they have not; however, he wished to emphasize they will not be
using any garbage as such.
Member Johnson felt they could have a problem with flies and questioned whether
they would be using any form of insecticide. Mr. Taylor remarked they would consider
it.
-I0-
For the present, they will be using crating boxes they can obtain from the Navy;
later on, they will have concrete beds measuring 7'x3'x16" with two by sixes in
between to allow for drainage. They will stack these to a height of not more than
4 feet. Mr. Taylor declared that they have already purchased the worms, and if
their permit is denied, they will use the worms in their own garden and lawn to
loosen the soil.
Member Comstock suggested the request be allowed for a period of one year and re-
viewed after that time to see if there will be any complaints, etc.
Chairman Stevenson felt the neighborhood should be informed of this proposed
business; the Commission should feel the "pulse" of the neighborhood on this.
Member Adams felt this would be fruitless since the majority of the neighbors would
know nothing about an occupation of this sort. He did suggest, however, that it
be permitted for a period of six months instead of a year.'
Member Johnson indicated the Commission should have a written statement from the
Health Department stating what problems, etc., might arise from this.
Director Warren reiterated that the Health Department told the staff there should
be no health problem here. Vice-chairman Stewart asked that the staff phone the
San Diego Planning Departments and ask them for comments since they may have had
similar requests. Also, that the staff notify the neighbors of this location asking
them if they have any objections to it, and for the staff to present any additional
comments they may have obtained concerning this type of business.
MSUC (Stewart-Johnson) Matter be continued to the meeting of May 3, 1965 in order
for the staff to get the necessary information requested by the Commission.
Resolution of Intention to Rezone Property on Both Sides of Oxford Street~ East of
Hilltop Drive from M-1 to R-I
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location and stating
that it involves 2 parcels owned by the California Water & Telephone Company,
presently zoned M-I. Both these parcels are surrounded by R-1 zoning with a large
water tank on the northerly parcel. The ordinance allows for a water tank on
property with a conditional use permit. Director Warren added that the staff
requests the Commission to set this for hearing to be zoned R-I to prevent any
possible encroachment of undesirable uses into this residential area.
RESOLUTION NO. 353 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Stating Their
MSUC (Stewart-Johnson) Intent to Call a Public Hearing for May 3, 1965, to
Consider Rezoning for Property Located on the North Side
of Oxford Street East of Cuyamaca Avenue and South Side
of Oxford Street, East of Hilltop Drive
Request for Extension of Time - Russell P. Haas Industrial Park Subdivision - Unit #1
A letter was read from Henry Algert, Engineer, requesting a one-year extension on
the tentative map so they may have this period to file their final map.
MSUC (Comstock-Stewart) Recommend approval of extension of one year on tentative map.
ORAL COMMUNICATION
Mr. Frank Ferreira, 3715 Putter Drive, stated that in the City and County of San
Diego, the Planning Director has the power to grant a 10 % deviation in a variance
for reduction of setbacks. Mr. Ferreira asked that the Commission consider this
same allowance for the City's ordinance.
-11-
City Attorney Lindberg stated that in San Diego, this varies in the rear yard,
side yard and height variances for fences; the Zoning Administrator is permitted
to allow such variances without having to call a public hearing. The judgment
exercised by the Zoning Administrator is the same as the Commission's; he must
make findings that would justify granting the variance. This eliminates going to
the Planning Commission and saves the applicant a great deal of time. Each case
is considered on its own merits and the decision of the Zoning Administrator is
appealable to the Board of Zoning Adjustments.
Director Warren declared a file would be kept on each case as is being done now,
and a process somewhat comparable to this is proposed in the new Zoning Ordinance.
Chairman Stevenson suggested this be discussed at the next workshop meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
MSUC (Comstock-Stewart) Meeting be adjourned to April 21, 1965, at 7 P.M., in the
Conference Room, Civic Center.
Respectfully submitted,
ie M. Fulasz 'J
Secretary