Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1965/02/15 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA February 15, 1965 The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California, was held at 7:00 P.M., in the Council Chamber at the Civic Center on the above date with the following members present: Stewart, Comstock, Adams and Guyer. Absent: Members Stevenson, Johnson, and Willh~te. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Assistant Planner Terrell, Junior Planner Lee, City Attorney Lindberg and Principal Engineer Harshman. In the absence of Chairman Stevenson, Vice-Chairman Stewart presided over the meeting. STATEMENT The Secretary of the Commission hereby states that she did post w~thin 24 hours of adjournment, as provided by law, the order of the Commission for the adjourned meeting of February 1 and February 10, 1965. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Adams-Guyer) Minutes of February 1, 1965 be approved, as mailed. Member Comstock abstained from voting because he was absent at the last meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Community Hospital of Chula Vista - 553 "F" Street - Addition to Hospital in R-3 Zone The application was read in which permission was requested to construct an addition to the hospital that will ~nclude: additional beds, Operating Rooms, X-Ray Rooms, etc. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan, noting the location and adjacent land use. The Commission will consider the use only, as detailed plans for the development will have to be brought to the Commission for approval at a later date. Member Adams mentioned a previous conditional use permit granted the hospital on May 7, 1962 for an addition to the hospital. Director Warren remarked this proposed plan before them tonight was an entirely new plan, incorporating the old request. Mr. C. C. Alley, Vice-President and Chairman of the Building Committee for the hospital explained that three lots were involved in the last request; since that time, they have purchased the additional lots. The plan they have now encompasses all of that area between Ash and Beech Streets to Davidson Street. Member Adams suggested the Commission consider only those lots concerned in the pro- posed development. Director Warren pointed out that any development taking place within the area specified would be subject to Commission review and requested that the entire area be considered at this time. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. There being no comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. MSUC (Comstock-Adams) Approval of Conditional Use Permit for addition to the hospital, subject to the following conditions: -1- 1. Adequate parking spaces for the entire project be provided. 2. Detailed plans, including landscape plans, be brought in for Commission approval, prior to seeking a building permit. Further, findings be as follows: 1. Granting this conditional use permit will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. The factors concerning damage, or the nuisance arising from noise, smoke, dust or vibration, or hazard to persons or property from possible explosion, contamination or fire, we feel will not be applicable in this case. The volume or character of traffic in the area would, perhaps, be changed; however, due to the proximity of the site to Broadway, and the fact that frontage is on a significant collector street, the change in traffic should have no detrimental effect on the area. 2. Since the hospital is already existing in the area, and because of its proximity to the commercial area on Broadway, we feel that the characteristics of the use proposed would be reasonably compatible with the type of uses in the area. At this point, the hospital seems to have caused no problem in the area other than the possibility of insufficient parking. We can assume that this problem wilt be alleviated when the new plans are developed. The surrounding area should develop with high-density residential use in the future, and if so, the character of traffic will probably be no~ greatly different than that which surrounds it. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Robinhood Homes~ Inc. - 402 and 406 Telegraph Canyon Road -- Service Station in CI1-D Zon~ The application was read in which a request was made for permission to construct a service station on property located at 402 and 406 Telegraph Canyon Road. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, adjacent zoning and land use. The access to the station will be made from Nacion Avenue ( one entrance) and two entrances from Telegraph Canyon Road. The station is located in a C-l-D zone and will be adjacent to the proposed interchange of Interstate 805. Director Warren then reviewed five conditions he would ask be imposed, if the request is granted. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Paul Stein, representing Mobil Oil Company, talked about the curb cuts and asked that no change be mede in where the Company proposes to locate them. The reason for their placement in these positions was because of the steep bank in the rear of the station, and so that the cars would not have to drive into the station at an angIe. Vice-Chairman Stewart questioned the distance from the curb return to the pump islands. Director Warren stated it was close to 30 feet. He suggested that he be allowed to work with the Engineering Department and the applicant on the precise location of these curb cuts. Mr. William Harshman, Principal Engineer, agreed with Director Warren, stating this would be worked out between the departments and the applicant. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams remarked that he voted against the rezoning for thisservice station because he felt, being adjacent to a residential zone, it would be incompatible, and such service -2- is provided across the street; he plans to vote against this request also. MSC (Guyer-Comstock) Approval of conditional use permit for a service station, subject to the following conditions: (Member Adams voted "no".) 1. That no moving or flashing signs be allowed, and that any lighting be designed to reflect away from any residential property. 2. That street trees be provided, and that landscaping, as feasible, also be pro- vided. This would include the pla~ng of the slopes to the south and to the west, and detailed landscape plans should be provided for staff approval. 3. That any outside sales or d~splays be restricted to an area beneath the canopies and that all items sold on the site be items normally ~ncidental to service station business. 4. The location of the curb cuts to be left up to the Planning Director and the City Engineer to work out with the applicant. 5. That the minimum number of signs be allowed as approved in the variance following this request. Further, findings be as follows: 1. That the granting of the conditional use permit will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. The factors involving damage or nuisance arising from noise, smoke, odor, dust or vibration, and hazard to persons and property from possible explosion, contamination or f~re will not be significantly · present, since the building code and certain health measures will provide adequate protection. With certain relocation of curb cuts, there should be no hazard occasioned by an unusual volume or character of traffic, since this intersection in the future, will be a heavily-traveled intersection; and because of its relationship to the proposed freeway interchange, this development should not have any significant effect on the flow of traffic. 2. The characteristics of the use proposed are reasonably compatible with the types of use permitted in the surrounding areas, since the neighborhood shopping center with a service station is being developed on the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road at this intersection, and because it is adjacent to the proposed Freeway interchange. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE - Socony Mobil Oil Company - 402 and 406.Telegraph Canyon Road -- Setback Reductions and Sign Area Increase The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction in front yard setback from 15 feet to 4 feet for canopy overhang and 12 feet for pump islands; from 15 feet to 5 feet on Nacion Avenue for a sign; and for permission to erect signs in conformance with exhibit I'A" of the application. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan and a rendering of the proposed service station. He reviewed the setback reduction requests and stated the staff feels the setback on Naclon Avenue should be reduced to 5 feet rather than zero. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. -3- Mr. Paul Stein, representing Mobil Oil Company, clarified the request for setback reduction for the sign. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams commented on the location of the free-standing sign. He felt it would be better situated on the opposite corner of the station and have less affect on adjacent residential use. Mr. Stein claimed a great deal of discussion and thought went into this, and perhaps it might be better to have the sign closer to the freeway. This matter was discussed with the Planning staff and they tried to come up with a location which would be acceptable to both parties. Member Adams said he based his thoughts on the fact that the station is to be located in a residential area, and not on a commercial street. The sign will not be very pleasing to view from the homes situated along "L" Street and the corner. Director Warren commented on the slgnage area. The application asked for 143 square feet; however, the plot plan shows lll square feet. He asked that the Commission hold them to the signage outlined on the plot plan. MSC (Guyer-Comstock) Approval of front yard setback reductions as follows: from 15 feet to 4 feet for canopy overhang and 12 feet for pump islands; from 15 feet to 5 feet on Naclon Avenue for a sign; and for permission to erect signs in conformance with exhibit "A~' of the application. Further, that 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 pro~ visions of sa~d 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. The lot is approximately 120 feet deep f~m Telegraph Canyon Road as compared to the 150 foot depth normally applied to service station sites. The rear 20 feet of this, approximately, is taken up with the slope. To allow proper maneuverability between the buildings and the pumps, it is necessary that the gas pumps be set forward. Because of a national identity established by the various service stations, they are required to use more square footage for signs since a portion of this signage is actually on the building and a part of it. They have standard sized signs which are used throughout the country. 3. Granting this variance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial property r~ght of the applicant. Unless this variance is granted, the shape and size of the site is such that proper circulation through the development will be difficult. Unless the variance is granted for the overhang, the pumps will have to be set back an unreasonable distance for the overhang to serve its purpose. Without this variance, the applicant is deprived of his national corporate identity afforded to most service stations outside of the supplemental "D" zone. '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 purple for the setbacks w~ll still prevail pro~ viding that the setbacks are reduced only for the canopy overhang, the location of the pump islands, and the sign structure, as approved on this variance. If held to that specified in the request, the square footage for signs will be com- patible with that allowed across the street for the service station, and since much of the sign area allowed is on the side of the building, the purpose for restricting the size of signs will probably be observed. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Guyer, Comstock, and Stewart NOES: Member Adams ABSENT: Members Stevenson, Willhlte, and Johnson PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Marvin Gustafson - Northeast Corner of Third Avenue Extension and Highland Avenue - Car Wash in C-2 Zone The application was read in which a request was made to construct a coin-operated, self-service car wash on property located at the northeast corner of Third Avenue Extension and Highland Avenue. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, adjacent land use and zoning. He stated this request is followed by a variaace for a setback reduction, and pointed out the location of the proposed building. Director Warren suggested the Commission might ask what is proposed for the rest of the property even though not a part of this request. The design of this building will have some colonial influence. Member Comstock asked about the ingress and egress. Director Warren indicated ~t will be on the Third Avenue extension; none isshown on Fourth Avenue. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Stan McNeil, one of the lessees of the property, discussed the layout of his development. He stated the west and north portions of the property will be graveled and will be used for supplemental parking purposes; the area in front will be used for parking, also. This will serve the business going in at a later date also. Mr. McNeil stated they do plan an access off Fourth Avenue; the curb cuts are already in and they do have an easement provision in their contract whereby they are allowed to use this. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Comstock discussed the traffic on Fourth Avenue and cautioned what would happen to this heavily traveled area if cars were allowed to park on Fourth Avenue and use the entrance on Fourth. With a 5-way signa~ on this corner now, Member Comstock felt the Traffic Department should look into this. Member Adams remarked that he hated to see this I'fine piece of property desecrated by a car wash." Member Adams added it would not be in the public interest to grant this permit for this sort of establishment. Director Warren commented that he agreed, in a way, because he felt it was an odd way to cut up this property; however, me Commission must bear in mind that the applicant can put in any use here allowed under C-2 zoning and not have to apply for a conditional use permit. Member Adams declared the condi- tional use permit gives the Commission some control, and he felt they could deny the request. Director Warren reviewed the conditions he would recommend be imposed, if approved, one of which would be for landscape plans to be submitted and approved. Mr.~Greg Williamson, partner of Mr. McNeil, spoke of the landscaping, stating they are proposing an adequate landscape program in order to create a good image. He then explained the construction of the proposed sign stating it will be 5 feet high and 10 feet long and be set at a 45© angle, double-faced, with Old English lettering. MSC (Comstock-Guyer) Approval of Conditional Use Permit for a coin-operated car wash, subject to the following conditions: 1. That a more detailed plot plan be submitted delineating curb cuts, location of parking spaces, and some diagrammatic indication of how the vehicular circulation will be worked out on the site. 2. That a landscape plan be prepared and submitted to the staff for approval. 3. That only the s~gn on the building, as discussed at the Commission meeting be allowed; any others be approved by the Commission. Further, findings be as follows: 1. That the granting of the conditional use permit will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, in that there should be no damage or nuisance arising from noise, smoke, odor, dust, or vibration, nor will there be any hazard to persons and property fom possible explosion, contamination or fire - the site ~s already in an area of heavy vehicular traffic, and if the site is properly designed, circulation and access can be planned to prevent any possible conflicts offsite. 2. The characteristics of the use proposed are reasonably compatible with the types of use permitted in the surrounding areas, since the area is zoned C~2 and allows our heavy commercial uses; in the adjacent area is located the Unimart service station and a permit for a similar car-wash has been issued in a C-2 zone further to the west along "C" Avenue. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Comstock, Guyer, and Stewart NOES: Member Adams (Th~s installation will not be compatible with the development in the area.) ABSENT: Members Stevenson, dohnson, and Willhite PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE - Marvin Gustafson - Northeast Corner of Third Avenue Extension and Hiqhland Avenue -- Setback Reduction The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction in front yard setback from 25 feet to zero for the purpose of constructing a car wash. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan and explained the setback was 25 feet because none has been established for this area. Director Warren discussed the space between the sidewalk and property line stating one end was 7 feet and the other end tO feet, which leaves enough room for landscaping. He asked that a con- dition be imposed specifying landscaping plans to be approved by the staff. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. '6- Mr. Start McNeil, one of the lessees of the property, assured the Commission they will have adequate landscaping. Their building was designed as a colonial structure, at the request of the owner, Mr. Gustafson. The owner plans to put in a smorgasbord restaurant, with the same architectural style, sometime in the near future on this site. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Director Warren indicated the staff does not wish to dictate every detall of land- scaping for the site; it is rare that the ataff ever changes anything proposed by the applicant; instead, the provision for staff review is a precautionary measure. The Commission then discussed the requested setback reductions and the irregular dimension along the front of the lot. MSUC (Comstock-Guyer) Approval of the reduction in front setback from 25 feet to zero. Further, f~ndings be as follows: 1. There are practical differences and unnecessary hardships within the meaning of the Ordinance 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 pro- perty of class of uses in the same zone. Because of the curvature of Third Avenue at th~s point, there is at least 10 feet between the back of sidewalk and the front property line. This will allow for sufficient setback which will be land- scaped, and the 25 foot setback is normally considered excessive for a C-2 zone. 3. Granting this variance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial property right of the applicant. W~thout the variance in this case, applicant is required to observe an unnecessary setback and is deprived of the opportunity to functionally use his property. 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, because a setback will be provided even though not on the applicant's property. The purpose of the setbacks will be observed. PUBLIC HEARII~G: VARIANCE - George and Ann Trusty - 1225 Frontage Road - Request for 6 Foot High Wall in Front Setback The application was read in which a request was made for permission to erect a 6 foot high fence in the front setback area on property located at 1225 Eo Frontage Road. Director of Planning submitted a plot plan noting the location of the trailer park. He explained that the applicants wish to build a 6 foot high block wall on the property l~ne which will be within the setback; the setback is 5 feet. This being the t~me and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. George Trusty, the applicant, stated they plan to put up a 6 foot high castle block wall. He stated an engineer from the Highway Department made a study of his premises and volunteered to put up some accoustical material on the Freeway retaining wall so that the sounds of the freeway would not "bounce back" to the trailer park. The Highway Department will also cooperate in planting some shrubs, etc. Member Comstock asked if any thought was given to planting different kinds of shrubs along with a grape stake fence in order to ward off this noise. Mr. Trusty said they considered only the block wall because this would cut the no~se down 50 %. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams commented that he visited the site and feels there is justification for a six foot high wall, but felt they should observe the setback. A 5 foot setback is uniform all along there. Member Comstock d~scussed a survey made on Alternate Route lO1 off Newport Beach, as to freeway noises. They found that using some plantings and a grape stake fence was the answer. He is suggesting this only for the benefit of the applicant, feeling he may want to look into this further. Mrs. George Trusty felt ~t wouldn't look well, because this does face Frontage Road. Vice-Chairman Stewart remarked there was room for plantings between the fence and the sidewalk if the setback is observed. Mr. Trusty declared that if they were made to keep this 5 foot setback, it would cut down on the space for the trailers. There is 3 feet of space also between the property line and the sidewalk and this would mean that he would have to maintain 8 feet of space. He has trailers using this space now. Director Warren felt the applicant was mistaken, as he visited the site and found no trailers occupying any of this space. He verified that there was 8 feet from the back of the curb to the property l~ne. MSUC (Adams-Guyer) The request for variance be denied. Findings are as follows: 1. Because of the curve in this street, vehicular sight distance is a problem and to allow the wall any closer to the front property line than 5 feet would create a traffic hazard. If there is justification for a 5 foot setback anywhere along this road, it should apply here. 2. The Commission suggests that the 8 feet between the sidewalk and wall be used to plant some type of shrub, which would help greatly to absorb the Freeway noise. Without the planting, it is anticipated that the wall alone will be ineffective in buffering the noise. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE - Roy Hubert - 615 Date Avenue - Reduction in Rear Yard Setback -- 20 feet to 12 feet The application was read ~n which a request was made for a reduction in rear yard setback from 20 feet~ 12 feet for the construction of an enclosed patio. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, the adjacent zoning and land use. He informed the Commission that the patio:was already built, and a violation exists - this variance is to correct that violation. The Building Inspector tagged the applicant when he went out to make a plumbing inspection. The applicant is still in the process of construction, building on a lavatory. Th~s being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Roy Hubert, the applicant, stated he was unaware at the time he was enclosing his patio, that he was violating the Ordinance. He described hls construction and his additional plans for completion. Director Warren noted on the plot plan, the enclosed area and the amount of space left, noting that in some areas the applicant is observing a 30 foot setback. Member Adams complimented the applicant on the "wonderful piece of work". He stated, however, it was a clear violation of the law and couldn't believe it was done unin- tentionally. He added the staff should look more closely into these things, and that in this particular case, the applicant should be penalized to some extent for this, perhaps in not being permitted to build on h~s toilet and lavatory. Vice-Chairman Stewart disagreed, stating the applicant has as much o~en space as the law requires, and that he believes it was an oversight. He is inclined to be lenient because of this. Member Guyer agreed and felt the applicant should be permitted to complete his construction. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission discussed the construction and the setbacks. Member Co~ tock felt the applicant does have a hardship here, in that he has put in a great deal of time and money into this project; he does not have an exceptional circumatance, however, as required by ordinance. There definitely exists a violation, but Member Comstock added, he felt the Commission shouldn't "split hairs" in not allowing the applicant to complete his construction. City Attorney Lindberg stated the records should not reflect the Commission as con- doning the violation, nor should it indicate a modification of the request as a penalty, rather, it should state the building is either approved or d~sapproved. Director Warren commented that the applicants could have built on the property line if the addition were detached from the house. MSUC (Adams-Guyer) Approval of reduction in rear yard setback from 20 feet to 12 feet. Findings be as follows: 1. There are practical difference and unnecessary hardships within the meaning of the Ordinance as amended which would result in the strict compliance of the provls~ons 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. The structure involved creating the violation existed, with building permit, in a semi-enclosed state. Windows and supporting posts were added, enclosing the structure to the ceiling. Applicant has provided light and air and usable space by leaving a patio between this structure and the dwelling. This addition becomes non-conforming, primarily in that it is attached to the dwelling. 3. Granting this variance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial property right of the applicant. Denial of this variance will require applicant to destroy an expensive structure which has been well-constructed, and will deny them the opportunity to use this area in the evening or during inclement weather. -9- 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. The required rear yard is to provide light and air and usable open space and protect adjacent property owners from structures being built on the property line. In this case, there appears to be no conflict with adjacent neighbors, and a 12 foot setback exists along with 30 feet on much of the lot. The open patio between this addition and the structure and the remaining con- forming rear yard is sufficient to provide the home owner with usable open space, and whatever light and air may be required. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE - Sections 33.3 and 33.16 -- Minimum Floor Area in R-1 Zones and Definition of "Family" Director of Planning Warren reviewed the 1300 minimum square foot requirement for a dwelling in an R-1 zone. He stated this was an emergency ordinance approved by the City Council in July, 1963 and extended. The public hearing tonight is for consider- ation of the "sliding scale" which is a recommendation from the Mayor's Committee set up to study this problem. A provision is made whereby a two-car garage must also be constructed; th~s would eliminate the carports. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. There being no comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Vice-Chairman Stewart asked what the Consultants' thoughts were on this. Director Warren said this was discussed with them, at one time, and they stated they did not want to suggest this in the new ordinance. It was their off-hand opinion that this provision will not accomplish what the Commission feels it will. Member Adams stated the experience of the Commission was contrary to that. Vice- Chairman Stewart remarked that the interim ordinance has accomplished something - it doesn't ~nsure that the City will get quality construction, but economics and time control this. Member Adams felt the new "sliding scale" would work very well and accomplish what they want ~t ~t. Also, there were no builders or real estate people in the audience protesting the proposed amendment. Director Warren commented that it was also the recommendation of the Mayor's Committee that all such dwellings be reviewed by an Architectural Board of Review. RESOLUTION NO. 344 Resolution of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, MSUC (Comstock-Adams) California, Recommending to City Council Approval of the Amendments to Section 33.3 and 33.16 of Chapter 33, Zoning Ordinance of the City Code. The definition of a "FAMILY" under Section 33.3 is hereby amended to read as follows: "An individual or two or more persons related by blood or marriage, or a group of not more than three persons (excluding servants) who need not be related by blood or marriage, living together as a single housekeeping unit ~n a dwelling unit." Section 33.16 is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 33.16 SAME--FLOOR AREA PER UNIT. The minimum floor area per ma~n dwelling unit in R-l, one-family zones shall be as follows: -10- 1. 900 square feet for each dwelling containing one bedroom. 2. 1000 square feet for each dwelling containing two bedrooms or one bedroom and den, family room or any other such room de- signated for miscellaneous purposes. 3. 1200 square feet for each dwelling containing three bedrooms or two bedrooms and den, family room or any other such rooms designated for miscellaneous purposes. 4. 1300 square feet for each dwelling containing four bedrooms or three bedrooms and den, family room or any other room designated for miscellaneous purposes, or more. Parking space for two cars shall be provided w~th a two-car enclosed garage containing a minimum of 400 square feet. MISCELLANEOUS Review of Plans for Apartments South of "K'~ Street~ east of Third Avenue -- Variance granted to Frank Whittinqton in R-1 Zone Director of Planning Warren submitted the final plans for the development of apart- ment units on property located south of "K" Street, east of Third Avenue for a variance granted Frank L. Whittington. It was one of the conditions of the variance that the final plans be brought in for Commission approval. The landscaping and construction will be similar to the other development on "J" Street - "Tree Haven". The units wi ll contain two and three bedroQm apartment unl ts. The Commission discussed the ~ngress and egress and concurred the layout was acceptable. MSUC (Guyer-Comstock) Approval of plans for Frank L. Whittington for apartments to be constructed on property located south of "K" Street, east of Third Avenue. Request for Approval of Dwelling in Bonita Verde Subdivision -- "D" Zone Director of Planning Warren submitted the plans for a residence to be built on Lot 32 of the Bonita Verde Subdivision. Commission approval is necessary because this is in the "D" or Architectural Zone. The house will be split level with one section going underground which will be a basement or storage room. No landscape plans have been submitted with the plans, as required by the ordinance. Vice-Chairman Stewart questioned the lower section of the spl~t level. Mr. Walter Long, the developer, stated it will be "rough" underneath and be used principally for storage. It w~ll be 3½ feet into the pad level and containing no windows. Vice- Chairman questioned whether the developer could legally go beneath the pad level. Director Warren declared that at the time the subdivision map was approved, it was stated that the developer had to stay one-foot above the 50 year flood level. Mr. Long remarked that the Engineering Department had stamped on the map: "subject to innundation due to soil erosion." Mr. Long stated the construction would be solid concrete block, water-proofed, etc. D~rector Warren reviewed the conditions set forth on the tentative map of the sub- division. He suggested an investigation be made into this as he questioned whether the Commission could grant this. -ll- Member Comstock felt it should be held over until the next meeting so that the Planning Director, the Engineering Department and the City Attorney could work out the solution to this problem and bring it back to the Commission at the next meeting. City Attorney Lindberg stated this could be done since the question was raised whether this particular design might violate the requirements set forth on the final map as to grade level, etc. This will have to be established. Mr. Walter Long informed the Commission that he has e signed contract to construct this house subject to the approval of the Commission. He wondered whether the Com- mission couldn't approve the plans, subject to the findings of the Planning Director, City Attorney and Engineering Department. City Attorney Lindberg stated the Com- mission could approve the plans es it stands; however, there may be a possibility of one-half of the plans not being approved, and then it would be necessary for the developer to revise his plans and come back to the Commission anyway. The question is what is on the final map, as stated. MSUC (Comstock-Adams) Plans for a dwelling to be constructed on Lot 32 in the Bonita Verde Subdivision be held over for two weeks so that the Planning Director can get together with the City Attorney and Engineering Department to resolve the matter of building a portion of the house below the 50-year flood level elevation. Report of Findings - Appeal of R. H. Woodward to Planning Commission Action Denyinq Rezoning from R-1 to R-3 -- Third Avenue~ 140 Feet North of IIDII The report of findings wes read in which a request by Mr..R.H. Woodward to rezone from R-1 (single-family) to R-3 (multiple-family) property located on Third Avenue, 140 feet north of "D" Street, was denied by the Commission at a hearing held on January 18, 1965. MSUC (Comstock-Guyer) Findings be approved and forwarded to City Council Report of Findings - Appeal of Bollenbacher & Kelton~ Inc. to Planning Commission Action Denying Variance -- Southwestern College Estates Member Comstock stated he was abstaining because he was absent at the time of the public hearing. The report of findings was read in which the Commission modified a request for permission to construct 34 homes having e minimum floor area of 1100 to 1300 square feet on property located at the Southwestern College Estates. TheCom- mission granted approval to construct 34 homes having a minimum floor area of 1200 square feet for 3 bedrooms and 1300 square feet for 4 bedrooms. Since the Commission did not make an actual outright denial of the entire request, Director Warren suggested the report of findings should reflect the reason for the modification, and asked Commission approval to quote this from the minutes. The Commission concurred this should be done and that the report of findings be revised. MSUC (Guyer-Adams) Report of findings, as outlined by the Planning Director, be approved and forwarded to City Council. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Comstock - Guyer) Meeting be adjourned, sine die. Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, , ie M. Fulasz " Secretary