Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-07-13; Planning Commission; Minutes'c1-w OF ~-YARLSBAD MEETING: PLANNING CcB"ISSI0N mm: JULY 13, 1977 TIME: 7:OO P.M. PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER - The meting w& called to order at 7:05 PJ RILL CALL - Ccmnissioner L'Heureux arrived at 7:lO P.M. APPROVAL QF I4INuIEs June 8, 1977 - Minutes were approved with the following corrections: page 2 - Typographical error "care" instead of "car. Page 4 - Include in the mtion that the obscuring fence is td be at the discretion of the Planning Director. June 22, 1977 - Minutes were continued to July 27, 1977, and they are to inclde the Page 5 - Camissioner Jose made the motion for EIR 380. Page 8 - Motion o~ V-268 to read: * A motion was made to appr0ve.V-268 based on the, findings made by the Planning coarmission and paraphrased in Resolution No. 1380 with the condition that the school letter mt be returned to the Planning carmission with the resolution at the next regularly scheduled meeting. following corrections : June 29, 1977 - Page 10 -C&ssioner Jose made the mtion for the EIR. Page 3 - second paragraph to be deleted. Page 14 - The minute mtion is to als inclLade the request to City Council to send a mmo to the City of Ocean- side encouraging them to obtain fundi as soon as possible for the south- bound traffic to have a right turn lane off El Camino Real going west. ,/ RESOLUTIONS """VL5 (u 7/2 Resolution No. 1378 - City of Carlsbad CUP-l28(A) A motion was made to approve Resolution No. 1378. Resolution No. 1376 - Ray.Stockton CT 77-7 A mtion was made to approve ResokCion NO. 1376 Resolution NU. 1320 - Pnilip Newell - V-268 A mtion was made to approve Resolution No. 1380 WRITTEN (XXWUNICATIONS ORAL C-ICATIONS - Carmissiolrler Ftmbotis asked for an update on infomtion regarding planning projects fmn staff. PUBLIC HEARINGS PRESENT MOTION AYES ABSENT X X X X X r L X X X L X X X X r i L r I X X X X X X f L i B I X X X x E X x K X X X X " 'CITY OF' LARLSBAD MEETING: PLANNING CW4ISSION PAGF, 2 mINLjED (1) Case No. CUP-X38 H. W. Butts - Approval of a .. Conditional Use Permit to operate a residential care facility for six persons at property located at the southeast corner of Kelly Drive and El Camin0 Real. Mr. Mike Zander, Associate Planner, explained that this is a request to increase an existing care facility fran'four to six persons. -me application originally appeared on the agenda for the June 8, 1977 Planning Comnission meting and was returned to staff for more information. At the June 22, 1977 mtincf, it was not possible to get a majority vote because of a 3-2 split. The application was continued to July 113, 1977 in order that Catmissioners Fikes and Watson could review the case and be eligible to vote. A question was asked staff about Condition No. 3 (C) regarding maintenance. The general opinion was that the yard and appearance were not in keeping 'with t residential area and there was concern about the masures that muld be taken to insure that this facility maintain& a standard &mpa+.ihle with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. - Bud Plender, Assistant Planning Direcbr, said if the application is denied the facility muld.cmtinue to operat as a four person care facility. If it is approved, conditions could be worked aut basing the approval in part on the condition that the property be maintained in an acceptable manner to be syre that this facility does not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. The applicant was not present. A mtion was made to deny CUP-138 based on the findinus at it would increase the activity of this particular resi . which is located on a min intersection and this would not keeping with the primary use of the property as a single family residence and that the property does not present a proper image for uses over and above noma1 residential. The maker of the mtion and the second withdrew the motion when it was detemined that the condition of the yard had not been an issue at the first meting when the applicant was present. A mtion was made to continue CUP-138 to August 10, 1977, and the Planning Comnission instnlctd staff to contact the applicant to see if property can be brought up to the maintenance level of the neighborhood and the maintenance continued to that standard. (2) Case No. CI' 74-21 (A) , Santa Fe Ccgnpany - Approval of a revised tentative subdivision map changing the nun-ber of units frcm two to eight. mated on the north side of Palm Airport Ibad between El Camim F&al and Santa Fe Road. Mr. Mike Zander informed the Carmissiori that Mr. Lyle Gabrielson, Rick Engineering Company, had written to the Planning Department requesting withdrawal of their nce !in MCYTI.CN AYES NOES i I " " X "_ ' CITY OF 3ARLSBAD MEETING: PLANNING CMSSION PAGE 3 application to amend CT 74-21 and to replace it with their application for a new Tentative Map for Palamar Airport Business Center CT 77-12. They asked that the original fees on CT 74-21(A)be applied to CT 77-12. Mr. Zander said staff approved of this action. A mtion was made to withdraw CT 74-21(A) as proposed by staff and requested by the applicant, and the funds originally received with this application be applied to the new tentative map application CT 77-12. €&solution No. 1383. (3) Case No. ZC-194, City of Carlsbad - City 'initiated zone change fran C-2 to Crq on parcels located general between Elm Avenue and Grand Avenue and Interstate 5 and the alley just to the west for General Plan consistency. (4) Case No. ZC-195, City of Carlsbad - City initiated zone change from C-2 and R-3 to CTQ on certain parcels located on or near the eastside of'Carlsbad Boulevard between Elm Avenue and Walnut. (5) Case No. ZC-196, City of Carlsbad - City initiated zone change from C-2 to CTQ and RPQ on certain parcels located at the southeast corner of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Wal. Mr. Bud Plender said that the City Council had requested the Planning Comnission to implarent the CT zone to General Plan consistq ... Zone changes 194, 195 and 196 are similar in nature and all City initiated. Since initiating these zone changes the fol1ming has happened: 1) City Council aqkdas have been extremely heavy especially including the budget mrk at this time of year, and at this th. 2) A sewer mratorim will not allm building permits Because of this staff ncrw recamends that the Comnission not take final action tonight, but consolidate the three cases and take public testimny concurrently to deterf-nine tl public reaction to these change of zones. A report City muncil will then be prepared explaining Planning cCat;nissio~ action and the attitude of the property owners and citizens regarding this action. The public hearing will be continu until city Council provides further direction. A mtion was made to bnsolidate 1~er1-1~ -3,. 4; qnd 5 on tonight's agenda, ZC-194, ZC-195 and ZC-196, and to take public testhny concurrently. ,/ MOTION AYES Y MOTION AYES ZC-194 - John Grant, 4056 Skyline RcMd, Carlsbad, one of th property mers, questioned the randan selectioii o'f pr6per-t iic picked for the rezoning. He said that in the well e&tablis5d quadrant of 1-5 and Elm Avenue only the northwest quadrant was picked for the exercise of rezoning. He asked why wasn't the southwest wliy put up for rezoliing. The staf:? report says there are'15-parcels and &.Grant reported they are owned by five parties. The Grads own eight of them, and have had them for approximately seven years. During most of those years the zpning was C-2. He reported they paid the initial price for C-2 property and they have paid the hiqher taxes attributable to C-2 zoninq 'CITY OF. "ARLSBAD vs. a lesser zoning and they would be very distressed to have the City dawngrade the zoning. In response to the staff reprt's remark that there would be no adverse effect to other elements of the General Plan if the propert were rezoned to CtQ, Mr. Grant said he felt this was irrelevant because there is no advqse effect right MIW with a C-2 ' zoning to the General pian or to the neighborin! property mers or to the bordering peripheral zoning nm ,separating their property, Mr. Grant said-the environment discussed under Section I of the staff repxt is not effected by or by C-2. There is no imp;act on public facility whether it ramins C-2 or is brought dm to CIQ zoning. Under the background section of the report Mr. Grant said he wanted to inform the Ccmnission of sane things that the staff would not have occasion to knaw. Amng the five mners there probably are four who would have good compatibility and who would be able to join together to develop this property as the ordinance 9478 on mrcial zoning suggests as one entity, but then is one recalcitrant property mer who lives out of tam who is not approachable. Itmight not be possible to make this one viable developxat because Mr. Grant said he had not succeeded with this property owner, There are three long term leaseholds of 20 years or mre on' this property. One of those is with Standard Oil for the already existing service station and the other is with Denny's restaurant who is Mr. Grant's enployer and that is for the sandy's . restaurant. men these two properties . were finally put together as they presently exist there was exchanged among the several mers and the lessees mncaqete covenantF that there shall not be developed on the remaining property of any of those mers either a service station or another restaurant. mind the fence that nm borders on the west of the service station and S J ,y'S- the covenant prohibits developmt like kind of ccmrnercid enterprise on that land. The property to the north side of Grand Avenue according to the staff reprt which dead- ends at the freeway is zoned under the Master Plan RMH. Mr. Grant said the zoning about which they were disassing .tonight of changing terminates on the west at an alley and beyond that alley is central business district. (CBD) C-2 would be an appropriate zone for that according to staff. Mr. Grant said he did not feel that either of these zones were'incansistent with the C-'2 zoning nm existing on his property. Mr. Grant said he knew this zone change was initiated by the City and hot by any disturbed property mers. Mr. Grant said the present General Plan was adopted in 1974 but the sumnary which he just received was March of 1977. He understarkis that it can be ded froen th to time, and Mr. Grant would like it deleted from the General Plan as it pertains to his property. While Mr. Grant said he had no quarrel with the (3 zone, he did not feel that it should be laid on the comer which is his property. He feels this is:: spot zoning without justification. Mr. Grant said he would like to review sc~ne of the uses of CT and why he would be unhappy to have it rezoned. The permitted uses and the structures related to these uses would be hotels. This parcel of land doesn't mure quite five acres whch is .already well cartnit4 with long term leaseholds. Mr. Grant said he felt it would be imposs.ible to put a hotel on ps particular piece: Motels. Economically, the property will not support a mtel. Mr. Grant said he was responsible for the , real estate operations for an international capany in behg employed by Denney's, and he felt he hew what he was talking about about as far as the econanics involved in mtels. ~estaurants. They already have a restaurant. “ CITY OF ’ARLSBAD PLANNING CKXWISSION MEETING PAGE 5 .’ He said these three uses for mi,& CTQ is structured are very restrictive The accessory uses are not compatible with the property. For instance, travel agencies. ”g purpose of a travel agency is to take local citizens out of town. A tourist muld be more apt to go to a real estate off ice. Mr. Grant said he is infomed by real estate professional pop1 in the city that each one of them is a-st a representatix of the Chanhr of C-ce. They have people caning in all of the &.for maps and information about the city, for smmr rentals, etc. Mr. Grant did not understand why a travel agency muld be allmed but not a real estate office. Other kes - apparel shops, bakery, etc. - are so limited and restrictive and represent to Mr. Grant a substantial dmgrade of the property. Mr. Grant feels it is necessary for the Planners:.: to consider the econmic ramificati0ns;I. Mr. Grant speculated on future activities and uses of the land. Mr. and Mrs. Grant would like the Cmmission to leave the land zoned as it is. He feels it will be very nicely deyelopd at a point in the future. There is nothing in the C-2 which would be contrary to the best interests of our tourists who would come to visit Carlsbad. Mr. Grant said there is nothing under CTQ that could offer than mre.than is offered now under C-2 because they plan to develop this 1s to its highest and best use. Bob Scerusnan, 3335 Lincoln Street, son of Jane scmmm, fonner Mayor of Carlsbad, and Rudolph Scaneman, and they had requested Bob Scmsran” to present a letter regarding their feelings about the rezoning. The letter which he read is attached:. Sally Donaldson, 4347. HighlanddXive, spoke ip opposition to the rezoning. She uwns the real estate office of DeIAng Donaldson RealtOrs.. She said her real estate Qffice serves. a very real need tol.the tourists. They pass out free maps which costs them about 25eeach - approxi~ratel 20 mps a week - in addition to giving out free .informtior about the city services and general informtion required . by the tourists. She said their office is the first place they stop as they get off of the freeway. She said they are like a second Chamber of Ccmnerce and they are open seven days a week. She said the businesses offered by the CT zoning do not relate to the area of Elm Avenue. She doesn’t feel that an apparel shop muld serve the tourist better than a r& estate office as she does not believe that a tourist gets off of the freway to shop for clothes. A florist. Haw many tourists get off of the freeway to buy flowers? Travel Agency. The travel agencies are used mainly by local residents who are going may. Sally Donaldson said she felt .they pass out more information on the local happenings and the local situations than travel agencies do. Novelty Shop%. She said that tourists do like to buy hick-knacks, but those things must be related to samething else that the tomist has stop@ for. She said that part of Elm can best serve the tourist and the resident under C-2 zoning. It ;r7 ould bring mre taxes to everyone concerned, and it could be developed to a much better degree than under the CTQ zone. I .CITY OF. ZARLSBAD PLANNING CCMvlISSICkJ Pm 6 Mary Grant, 4056 Skyline Road, Carlsbad, said she did telephone the various cities and organizatians around San Diego and found nothing ccanparable to what is proposed in rezoning to CTQ. She said she telephoned Oceanside andthe only tourist area that they propose is what they call Mberts Park north of the pier on the beach. Del Mar has a Visitor Ccmnercial south of the gramnar school. She telephoned San Clmte. They have no tourist zoning nm. San Diego City has no tourist zoni and San Diego County presently has Freeway Service K=icilit where the property is not-zoned presently and it is Eor interstate type traffic. The.only tam that she found that has the CT zone is Vista. There was an article in the newspaper about the new revised zoning laws, what San Diego county hops all 15 cities will adopt. Their Freeway ccatmercial zone carmtitted to the civic utilities service, comnercial eating and drinking, lodging mtel, agricultural uses, storage, wholesale nursery storage; they can have service stations and with a mjor permit they can have civic use types, hospitals, etc. and cannercia1 recreation. None of those things are what we want at this intersection in Carlsbad. Those of you who have been here long emugh ranember the,econ&c dislocation when the freeway was put in. Old 101 with all of the restaurants and service stations, and it took years for that area to became redeveloped. Look what happened to the valley when 1-5 was put in. Go up through Fresno and Bakersfield and see all of the empty mtels and service stations. . Mrs. Grant said she didn' t think the City would want to take on itself the economic responsibility of restricting the uses of the property. Let free enterprise handle it, both the service to the residents and the tourist. The City, oontrols parking, they control traffic, they stopped MacDonald's €rom going in at the shopping center and if we tried to put in anythir in here you would stop us. We had to put in a fire line and fire hydrants for future develomt - no problem except they wuld not have done this if there was going to be future rezoningT ZC-195 Paul Wapshaw, 3248 Carlsbad Boulevard, said he and his partner own the frontage from Pine to Walnut on Carlsbad Boulevard. ' He feels the real estate business offers many services to the tourists. He also mtioned the changing types of business such as sukf shops not really being knam 20 years ago in the way that it is today or thelittle yogurt shop - it wasn't heard of in this manner. He feels that the highest and best use is the doaing as it is ncw. ZC-196 Nick Bancke, 3464 Ridgecrest, represented Wilbur C. Cohen, the owner of the 7.5 parcel and one approximately 9 acres. With the understanding that thisrezoning will-be reheard at another time, Mr. Bancke saidlhe was here in Mr. Cohen's behalf to ask that the comnission continue this particular I !S . T CITY OF ZARLSBAD action. The reason for the continuance is-that there is a potential buyer for this land who has in fact filed a General Plan Amendmat. The amendment muld be inconsi&ent with the proposed zone change and Mr. cohen asked Mr. Bancke to appear and request a Continuance. Fred Morey , La Costa Land Company, said they have owner- ship of the small piece of land on the corner of El Camin0 Real and La Costa and they have a major concern as t what isgoing to develop in that area. Since it is .. apparent that this issue is going to be continued, Mr. Morey said he muld not speak much mre &ut this issue tonight except to tell the Comnission that he will definitely be back, that he is very concerned about what is to be developed at this location since it is a sensitive corner . c William Burnett, Pacific Mutual Building, 523 West 6th Street, Ijos Angeles, said he is the purchaser of the property med by Mr. Cohen which carprises approxinately 16.7 acres. He said this is not the tine to list the merits of the pending application to arclend the General Plan that is nav filed with the City. It is scheduled to hF? heard on August 10th.by the Planning Ccarmission, and he is suhitting to the Planning' Department next week a substantial amDllllt of information including slope analysis,,traffic analysis, marketing and feasibilitJ study. He said that his analysis indicates that. certain zoning is proper and his point in appearing at the Carmission was to request that any action be delayed on this zone change'until such time as the conmission has a chance to hear the amendment to the General Plan proposal. Mr. Plender stated that the CT zone was developed directly fran travel category of the General Plan. The uses and types of develo-t are referred back into the General Plan. This is a new zone and this is the first attmpt to impl-t it. A general discussion of the Carmission regarding the CT zone :brbught up the .pints that itmdd be possible to amend the zoning or amend the Geheral Plan, that 'the zoning might be .fine, but it is not being applied to the correct property and that often zonings are created in bpes of getting sane public input and, it is put to the true test when it appears as a public hearing. It was felt that staff should have further input on what is econcanically feasible for these locations and inclrade: : that infomtion in the staff report. Mr. Plender said the General Elan was done on a time basis and there are certain types of uses that staff,feels will expand within this mi&;- tourism is thought to'be OX. FJhat may not be economically feasible today perhaps will bt in 20 or 25 years .- Therefore, Council Set aSiae land tha Would be used in the future for these uses. sate of that land is presently beMg used for residential, bc& to 9et where they wanted to go in the future, the City felt they had to put Consistency zoning on it.. If it is zoned R-I for instance, and a property mer puts a lot of I ~[y3ney in the hame, it will be mre diffi-cult to sell as ccmnercial at a future time. b If 25 years 1- I -t I" 'CITY OF." \ARL.SBAD PLANNING cy1"ISSION Pm 8 JULY 13, 1977 A motion was made to continue ZC-194, ZC-195, and ZC-196 to a date uncertain and staff was requested to forward a report to City Council including the testimony fm the citizens and input fraan the Carmission and staff and requesting direction fran City Council in that further mrk needs to be done in: 1) types of uses under the CT zones, and 2) the determination which properties are called out to be CT. (6) Case No. SP-41(A), May SWres Showing Cehters, Inc. Approval of an amndmnt to SP-41 to delete that portion of property to be superseded by Precise Plan PP-24. Mr. Mike Zander gave the staff presentation. The Speclrlc Plan was approved by the City Council in 1972 which included land vest of the existing Plaza camin0 -1 between Marron F&d and the City limits to Jefferson Street and Buena Vista Lagoon. The specific plan states that, prior to building, a developwnt plan must be sulssnitted to the City for approval. May ccknpany Stores suhitted Precise Plan 24 per agreement with the City which satisfies all of the requirements of the Specific Plan. Mr. Mike Zander explained that the duck landing, is not part of the request before the Ccmnission. When Jeffersan was relocated +&e old Jefferson, which was vacated, wmt back to the property mer because he had dedicated the new right of way. It does not have C-2 zoning, but does have the specific plan over it. Prior to any developwnt occurring there or anywhere else within the remainder of the boundary, the applicant would have to suhit developm'k plans to the City. JW. Zander said there is no way of knowing at this time haw that will effect the future of the duck landing. Chairman Larsan said that on June 29, 1977, the Planning Cannission approved Precise Plan 24 of which a condition was that the Specific Plan 41 be ~ mved. There was further discussion regarding the background of the duck landing. The Planning copnmission at the first hearing of a zone change for the shopping center put in a stipulation that the duck landing would be protected. The Council made the change and the agreement reg-g the realignrent of Jefferson and the development of Marron Fbad which eliminated the duck landing. Mr. Vincent Biondo, City Attorney, stated that the Council not inclineu to require dedication of the property. They did not share the nature 04 the concern that the Planning Carmission had expressed in pro&cting the land; that perhaps there'was another time and place when the property more westerly was developed that would bc the proper time to deal with the issue. He stated that "elimination" was rot correct in the previous mt. KYI?ION AYES ABSTAIN . 9s * -'CITY OF ZARLSBAD PlANNING CCNMISSION pm 9 JULY 13, 1977 Mr. Biondo said that at no in the discussions with staff or Council in terms of the May Company agrement or construction of the new "T" intersection was there any thin^ more than what is talked abut being done nw. He stated that he did not see any relation to the duck landing in tern of deleting the specific plan portions for samething in the precise plan that the Planning Carmission had already found.acceptable. A motion was made to approve SP-41 (A) based on the findings and conditions in the staff report to delete that portion of property to be superseded by Precise Plan 24 and including Resolution No. 1384. NEW BUSINESS (7) Case No. MS-303, Mr. and Mrs. Sam Wusa, west for Planning camnission approval, pursuant to Title 21, Section 21.10.080 for a panhandle lot located on the south side of Magnolia Avenue, betmen Adams Street and Highlard brive. Mr. Mike Zander said this is a non-public hearing item based on the section of the ordinance that was mdified recently to bring panhandle lots for Planning Conmission approval. There had been a. variance approved for this property scm six or seven years ago. That variance permit subsequently expired. Mr. Tim Flanagan, City Engineer, said his staff prepared most of the report. Rathk than Planning ccaronission debate each condition dawn the line, Mr. Flanagan suggested only one condition stating that "mlicant shall conform to the requirements of the City in practicing a minor subdivision to create a panhandle lot. II If the Council next Tuesday night on the MS-303 appeal decides .to dify sane of the conditions, then the applicant will have a wnfoming Planning caarmission resolution. Mr. Sam Gendusa, 1149 Magnolia Avenue, gave a sw of the history ot this particular request beginning in 1969 with the granting of the variance which expired 18 mnths later. On November 1, 1976 he started action to canply with the variance by wriking to the. City Council. It was necessary to get a new tentative map and begin the process. He feels that fm November 1, 1976 to July 13, 1977, the delays were caused by city processes .-' and this caused him to be caught in the sewer moratorium. He said the sewer moratorium should not apply to him because of the delays which he did not feel were his fault. He wants to continue enjoying his guest house. Chairman Larson reminded Mr. Gendusa that the corrmission was hearing only that portion that pertained to the pan- handle lot. The other items should be brought before the City Council on July 19th. The Planning ccarmission is considering if Mr. GendUSa's lot meets the requirerru3nts which would allot him to split his lot under minor subdivision ordinance. A mtion was made to approve MS-303 based on the findings and with the conditions deleted Bnd the following condition added to the staff report: "Applicant shall conform to the requirements of the City in processing a minx subdivision to create the panhandle lot." Resolution 1382. I 'I "_ X -7 I X X / 7 X ,- .. 'CITY OF 'ARLSBAD PIiANNmG CmMISSION PAa 10 JULY 13, 1977 (8) Case - Planning Camission Determination - 0' Hara Fen -st for Planning Conmission approval of a fence ex6eeding six feet in a front yard setback (-1 Zone) under Section 21.46.130, Title 21. Mr. Mike Zander gave the staff presentation. He said that in Section 21.46.130 there is the statement that under special circumstances the Planning Ccarmission can grant approval for a fence over six feet. Mr. O'Hara plans to build single family hones on adjacent lots. The people buying them want to install a tennis court, mutually uwna in the front yard over both lots. The terulis court is a permitted use; and not the issue. The fence akound the tennis court would be actually four feet above street grade at the east end of the court and six feet at the west end. By ordinance the fence shall not be higher than 42" in front yard. This ordinance provision allows for Illodification. Mr. Zander said the Cmnission was not to approve or deny the fence, but to decide if there is a special use or circumstance in effect at which pint theComnission would grant approval of the fence. No visual impact will be caused by the construction of the fence. Staff was requested to check the backyard fence setback and so note. A mtion was made to approve a fence which will exceed six. feet to be erected around the tennis courts based- on the findings and conditions in the staff report and under the conditions as found in Section 21.46.130. Resolution No. 1387 (9) Resolution of Intention No. 147, Street Name Change VII, Olive Drive. Mr. Bud Plder gave the staff report. He said the ~romsed street name chanqe was initiated by the City LL in response to coimnents f&n the Police- and Fire Oeparhnen that a potential dispatching problem may exist as Olive Drive and Olive Avenue have the same name. A mtion was made to approve Ftesolution 147 based ontthe conditions and findings in the staff reprt. Adjournment 10:45 P.M. ~ HYTION AYES Planning Commission Ciby of Carlsbad Carlsbad, Calif. Subject: Case NO. ZC-194, City of Carlsbad Dear Commissioners: We own property at the corner of Elm and 1-5 under -. long term. lease to Standard Oil. We have consented to a long term sub-lease by Standard Oil to John and Mary Grant on the property behind the service station to be usad exclusively for parkhe; only for Sandy@s Restaurant* There is no genuine benefit to be derived by the people of Carlsbad for this Zoning Change which would not, and is not, already saailablo under the existing C-2 Zoning. In fact, to approve a dowp-zoning from C.2 to CTQ would be to deprive the property owners of the more flexible and reasonable development of the property for the benefit of all including tourists. Please giro this reqoning matter your thorough consideration and allow the land to stay zoned C-2,