Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1963-10-07 PC MINS MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA October 7, 1963 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista was held at 7:00 P.M. on the above date in the Council Chamber at Civic Center with the follow- ing members present: Stevenson, Stewart, Comstock, Johnson, Willhite, Adams and g,uyer. Absent: None. Also present: Acting Planning Director Warren, City Attorney Duberg, Principal Engineer Harshman and City Engineer Cole. ,APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Johnson - Comstock) Minutes of September 23, 1963 be approved, as mailed. REZONINGS PUBLIC HEARING: Ross Willhite - R. B. Hammond Member Willhite abstained. Mr. Warren explained this was the proposed rezoning from R-1-13-20 to R-3-D-B-3 for 4 lots in the Bonita Bel -Aire Subdivision. This matter was first discussed at the August 5th meeting and then postponed for 60 days in order that the Commission could review the Sketch Plan. Mr. Warren added that the Sketch Plan has not, as yet, been returned to us in a final form, and asked that the matter again be continued until the meeting of November 4 or 18. Member Willhite stated he had no objection to this. MSUC (Adams - Guyer) Matter of rezoning be continued until the meeting of November 4, 1963. Member Willhite abstained from voting. PUBLIC HEARING: F. D. Longworth Construction Company The application was read in which a request was made for a change of zone from C-2 to R-3 for the first lot west of the alley on the north side of "G" Street, between Third Avenue and Del Mar Avenue. The applicant further requests that a 5 foot front setback be established on this property and the remaining property east to Del Mar Avenue. Mr. Warren submitted a plot plan explaining the existing zoning and land use of the area. He commented that the vacation of the alley adjacent to this property has been endorsed by the City Council in the past and recommended that any rezoning be contingent upon such vacation. This being the time and place as advertised, Chairman Stevenson opened the public hearing. Mr. Fred Longworth', the applicant, explained that he proposes to put in 11 apartments here. The lot contains 11 ,600 square feet. The Commission discussed the topography and Mr. Longworth said that a portion of the lot was 9 feet lower than the sidewalk. The apartments will be two story, and parking will be provided on a lower level , in garages, below each apartment. -1- Each apartment will have 875 square footage plus 75 square feet for the balcony for each apartment. These apartments will lease for between $165. and $175. a month. Member Comstock asked about the existing drainage ditch, and Mr. Longworth replied that he will put up a bond guaranteeing construction of drainage facilities acceptable to the City. Vice-Chairman Stewart questioned the adequacy of ingress and egress for parking. Mr. Longworth stated that what he proposes should be adequate, but one unit will be eliminated if final parking plans are not approved. Vice-Chairman Stewart commented that people will be parking in the street if there was not enough room for them to turn their cars around behind the apartments. Member Willhite asked if there was any study made to utilize the alley .going north. Mr. Longworth doubted that he could use this, but said it was worth investigation. Mr. Claude Lane, 281 "G" Street, Mrs. Thelma Weigle, owner of apartment building east of this proposed development, Mrs . Mabel Reckerd, 252 A "G" Street and Frank White, 268 Madrona spoke in opposition. They stated as their objections: (1) alley is used for utility purposes; (2) cars will be parked in front of apartment on "G" Street; (3). if approved, a one hour parking zone should be imposed on "G" Street; (4) setback should be no less than that of existing buildings in this lot; (5) park- ing space is not adequate for two-bedroom apartments; (6) if the setback is reduced here, there will be a problem if "G" Street is ever widened. Member Comstock commented that the developer should be complimented for developing this piece of property. It has been an eye-sore for years and quite a difficult parcel to develop because of the topography. This development will be a great improvement in this area. Mr. Comstock added that if Mr. Longworth had proposed to develop it commercially, he wouldn 't have had to come in and ask for the reduction in setback. Chairman Stevenson mentioned that the corner lots always presented a setback problem, and frequently a need for adjustment. Member Adams said he felt a 5 foot setback here ,-L would not be detrimental to anyone. This was a narrow lot and 5 feet would be of great assistance in development and felt the Commission should encourage this. The Commission discussed the vacation of the alley and agreed that this would have to be settled by the City Council . RESOLUTION NO. 283 Recommending to City Council the Change of Zone from (Comstock -. Stewart) C-2 to R-3 and Setback from 10 feet to 5 feet for M500, Property at the Corner of "G" Street and Del Mar Avenue. The recommendation be based on the following condition: 1 . Developer of land be required to alleviate the drainage problem on the lot involved. Further, findings be based on the following: 1 . Good zoning practice, creating a better zoning pattern for the area. 2. Rezoning and setback is needed for the development of this property inasmuch as the topography varies to minus 9 feet below the sidewalk. 3. Drainage problem compounds development problems of the property. -2- PUBLIC HEARING - Beaulah E. Whitney The application was read in which a request was made for a change of zone from R-3 to C-2 for 3 lots located on the west side of Landis Avenue, 141 feet north of "E" Street, and for 2 lots on the east side of Landis Avenue, also 141 feet north of "E" Street. Mr. Warren submitted a plot plan explaining the zoning and adjacent land uses. This being the time and place as advertised, Chairman Stevenson opened the hearing. Mr. Whitney, 178 Third Avenue, husband of the applicant, said he was speaking also for his wife. They own 4 lots, living on one lot, and leasing the other 3 lots to the automobile dealer on the corner of 3rd and "E" Street. They use the lots to store their new cars. Those speaking in opposition were: T. J. Sessions , ' 173-175 Landis (owns the duplexes here) , Harold L. Jones, 134 Landis and Thurmond Johns , 174 Landis Street. The reasons they. stated were: there is an established zoning on Landis - residential ; the whole block will be blighted by the change in zone; it is spot zoning; a setback for C-2 zone would have a 5 foot setback and everything on the street is 15 feet; parking along the street will be worse than it is now. Favoring the rezoning was Donald McCreadie, co-owner of Castle Rambler, who stated his business needs this land to house their new cars and also for an expansion of his business. At present, he is paying $20,000. in taxes to the City each year, doing a $2,000,000. business annually. If this rezoning fails to be approved, he may have to take his business out of Chula Vista. He was planning to extend his service facilities ,to these lots. Mr. Regler, son-in-law of Mr. Whitney also spoke in favor of the rezoning, saying there was a 50 foot strip of land between these lots and the property owned by Mr. Sessions , (one of the protestants.) He indicated that this type of business presents no problems to the City because it is a day business , running from 8 to 5 o'clock. The night hours are quiet. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams said he was opposed to extending commercial zoning on these streets any further north. He added that they have tried to hold the line and prevent any more strip zoning and have looked upon Third Avenue frontage as good property for R-3 developments. Vice-Chairman Stewart said �:he endo,rses; Member Adams comments. He commented that it was regrettable that the Castle-Rambler people do not have enough room, but dislikes being placed in a position that the Commission either approve this rezoning or the City will lose $20,000. a year. The matter should not be based on this - the main reason Mr. Whitney wants this rezoned is for economic gains; other people along the'= street will attempt the same thing. Mr. Stewart added he was opposed to any change in the zoning pattern in this area. Chairman Stevenson agreed, adding that there appears to be an abundance of commercial zoning already in the City. Member Comstock said this was a tough problem, insofar as they want to expand the businesses on Third Avenue. One way to do this is to encourage more businesses to come into the area. Mr. Comstock then pointed out the traffic along Third Avenue and "E" Street and felt it was questionable to consider "E" Street as residential area. -3- Member Adams disagreed stating the commercial trends on Third .Avenue were inevitable; he also pointed out the existing good residential character of Landis Avenue. Mr. Adams said it was the Commission 's duty to protect those properties as well as to assist in sound commercial development. Member Johnson suggested that rezoning of only the R-1 property east of Landis be considered at this time. Vice-Chairman Stewart said the rezoning would be a definite intrusion, since it was bounded on three sides by residential use. The type of operation proposed is not', compatible with the R-1 , R-2 and R-3 uses in the area. Mr. Stewart asked how they could turn down the next applicant for the same request. He also commented that the applicant was not bound by his current proposal and could later use the property for anything allowed in a C-2 zone. Member Willhite pointed out that comprehensively, the area under consideration was "E" Street, east to west, which was a heavily traveled street in Chula Vista. This rezoning ,could help alleviate the traffic problem by removing that much more parking from the street. Vice-Chairman Stewart disagreed with this theory stating that the Highway 280 to Montgomery Freeway would take a heavy load off "E" Street. He stated further that increasing the commercial in this R-1 area has no bearing on this. Chairman Stevenson .agreed saying this matter was just leg)lizing an illegal operation, and an innocent step prompting this rezoning could set a precedent here. GUIF-R MSC (Adams - Jai�) The application for rezoning be denied. Findings be based on the following reasons: 1 . It would be an intrusion of commercial zoning into a residential area, an example of poor zoning practice. 2. It would increase the existing imbalance of commercial zoning presently existing in the City. The motion passed by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Adams, Guyer, Stewart and Stevenson NOES: Members Comstock, Johnson and Willhite ABSENT: None To Be Set For Public Hearin q: Small Annexation Prezoning_ Mr. Warren showed a plot plan pointing out the location of the Small Annexation, be- tween Quintard Street, Second and Third Avenue. The area encompasses approximately 15.3 acres. A letter from Cecil E. Sparling, real estate broker, was read in which he requested prezoning of the annexation to R-3 and- C-2. RESOLUTION NO. 284 Resolution of Intention to Set a Public Hearing for November (Stewart - Willhite) 4, 1963 for Prezoning the Small Annexation. Msvc; To Be Set For Public Hearing - Hilltop and "G" Streets Mr. Warren stated this was referred to the Commission by the City Council . He pre- sented a plot plan showing the location and the adjacent lot sizes and explained the basic proposal . —4— RESOLUTION NO. 285 Resolution of Intention to Set a Public Hearing for (Comstock - Willhite) November 4, 1963 to Consider Rezoning for Property At 1v,5u0 Hilltop and "G" Streets from R-1-13-12 to R-l . VARIANCES Harold Lindemood - 271 Church Avenue The application was read in which a request was made for variance from the zoning requirements of the City Code for property located at 271 Church Avenue for per- mission to build a 24 ft. by 24 ft. dwelling on the rear of property in a commercial zone. Mr. Warren submitted a plot plan explaining that the property fronts on Church Avenue. This being the time and place as advertised, Chairman Stevenson opened the public hearing. Mr. Harold Lindemood, the applicant, said he needs two additional bedrooms for his two grandchildren whom he is raising, and also an office for himself. When asked about the parking, Mr. Lindemood-stated more parking could be provided if required in addition to his four-car garage. His business would not involve an increase in vehicular traffic. Mr. H. J. Erwin, 267 Church Avenue, told the Commission he has been a neighbor of the applicant 's for 23 years; he strongly favors the proposal . . A petition, signed by 4 adjacent property owners was presented, favoring the proposal . Member Adams stated he feels favorably inclined to this variance; the exceptional circumstances could lie along the line that there is improper zoning along this street at this time. Mr. Adams discussed the ordinance prohibiting residential uses in a commercial zone, and the fact that the staff and the property owners in this area have approved a future rezoning.to R-3, which means that they consider the present zoning improper for this street. It may take 3 or 4 months to effect this into an ordinance, and in the meantime, the applicant is under a hardship in not being able to go ahead with his plans. Member Comstock disagreed with the comments made by Member Adams stating that Mr. Lin- demood does presently own a duplex and why couldn 't this be converted for his family use. Member Adams reminded Member Comstock that the area is proposed for R-3 zoning; however, Mr. Comstock questioned this stating there was no public hearing called on this. Vice-Chairman Stewart asked that the records show this was Member Comstock's feelings, and not the Commission 's as a whole. The Commission discussed the possibility of rezoning this street; Mr. Warren explained this was encompassed in the Parking District, and the staff did not get the entire endorsement of all the property owners in the street for the rezoning. Member Comstock brought up the question of the effect of the rezoning in this area after the bonds on the Parking District have been sold. He wondered if the property could be taken out of the district at that time, and rezoned to R-3. City Attorney Duberg said it can be taken out of the district- now; however, after the bonds are issued, the property would be made subject to assessment. Member Comstock felt it would not be practical to zone it to R-3 when it is embedded with bonds. Member Adams disagreed, stating the variance in question should be based on exceptional cirumstances, which in his opinion, would be improper zoning of this property. -5- The Commission discussed the matter of continuing this so that the applicant could meet with the Planning Staff and work out something; however, Mr. Lindemood explained that he first came in the last part of July with a signed petition from adjacent property owners to rezone the street. He would like to settle the matter as soon as possible. MSUC (Comstock - St`ewart) Public hearing be continued until November 4, 1963 so that the applicant can work with the Planning Staff and come to a solution. AMENDMENTS TO ZONING ORDINANCE - Bonita Village Annexation Acting Planning Director Warren explained that a 25 foot front setback was auto- matically assigned to the entire annexation when it came into the City. Normally, the setback for commercial zones is 5 feet or zero. This being the time and place as advertised, Chairman Stevenson opened the public hearinc Mr. Gordon Pettit, manager of the Bonita Village Shopping Center, said the setback for his shopping center was 25 feet; they maintain 25 feet plus 50 feet from the center line. Most of this is used for parking. Mr. Richard Allen, Allen School Road, Bonita, said Bonita was subdivided in 1886 by a man named Cooper and he established Bonita Road with a 100 foot width, which he con- siders excessively wide. Chairman Stevenson felt that it would be well to establish a 5 foot setback here in view of the uses in the Valley. Member Guyer agreed, along with Member Stewart because of the rural character already established here. Member Comstock felt 5 feet or zero shouldn 't make that much of a difference, but Chairman Stevenson said the overhang situations would be helped with a 5 foot setback. Mr. Daniel Thomas, developer of the proposed apartments to be built on this road, felt a 5 foot setback would impose a hardship on a developer, and could create an eye-sore. With a 100 foot wide road, he said the 5 foot setback would serve no pur- pose. Past Mr. Steve Gassaway,/President of the Sweetwater Valley Civic association, said they do not oppose this request. Member Willhite asked about the actual paved area and Acting Planning Director Warren said it was about 36 feet, exclusive of the divided area. Mr. Thomas stated it was actually 60 feet from the curb; however, where no curb was established, it was 36 feet. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Willhite commented that in view of the fact that the street is 100 feet wide, the zero setback would seem adequate. Member Comstock commented that the 5 foot setback could create a maintenance problem. RESOLUTION NO, 286 Recommending to the City Council the Establishment of a Five (Guyer - .Stewart) Foot Building Line for C-1-P-D Property Fronting on Bonita Road in the Bonita Village Annexation. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: -6- AYES: Members Guyer, Stewart, Stevenson and Adams NOES: Members Johnson and Willhite ABSENT: None Member Comstock abstained from voting. Amending Section 33.32 - Driveways The proposed amendment was read which specified that "a paved driveway, having a minimum width of 16 feet, shall be provided to accommodate fire fighting equipment for any construction of two or more dwelling units on any one lot if the distance from the existing city curb line to any part of the building exceeds 150 feet. The maximum distance from the driveway to any part of the building shall not exceed 150 feet. Vertical clearance requiring a minimum of 10 feet, to be determined by the City engineer." Chief Lee, Fire Department, noted several situations in the City where it was almost impossible to get in his fire equipment. They need at least 8 feet of width to open the truck doors. Member Adams asked if it was necessary for them to get right up to the door, and Mr. Lee said for most fires , in order to be fast and efficient in putting it out, they use the water that is right in the truck; therefore, it is necessary for them to get as close :to the fire as possible. The Commission discussed the 16 foot driveway, and Mr. William Harshman, Principal Engineer, said he discussed this with Chief Lee and he would recommend that the drive- way not necessarily be paved, but be an "all-weather" driveway. He would also recommend the words "City Engineer" be eliminated from the paragraph as he felt the Building Inspector could check this clearance as well . Mr. Frank Ferreira, building contractor, stated that the driveway width and height- clearance were unnecessarily restrictive. Fire Marshall Smithey commented that the actual height of the leader on the fire trucks was 9 feet 6 inches. Mr. Ferreira claimed a 10 foot wide driveway would serve the purpose as well . There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Comstock suggested the wording of the ordinance be revised incorporating the recommendations listed tonight. MSUC (Comstock - Willhite) Proposed ordinance be re-drafted along the lines suggested by Mr. Ferreira and the Engineering Department, and be presented at the meeting of November 4, 1963. SUBDIVISIONS Palomar Plaza - Tentative Map Mr. Warren stated that the map was not ready for action; that he had arranged with the subdivider to place it on the November 4th meeting. Princess Crest - Final Map Acting Planning Director Warren explained the location of the subdivision as being east of the Halecrest Subdivision. He added the conditions for approval of the tentative map have been met and therefore the staff recommends approval of the final map. -7- MSUC (Stewart - Guyer) The final map be recommended for approval . El Dorado Plaza Subdivision - Tentative Map This was continued from the last meeting because the Commission felt the residential portion could be better developed. Acting Planning Director Warren said he received the revised plans; the commercial is the same, however, the R-3 has been revised with 108 lots. He discussed the plan pointing out that the access for parking will be served from the street. The subdividers propose a 20 foot wide commercial alley with a 10 foot wide planting strip on the easterly side. There will be a 10 foot sidewalk easement between the R-3 lots in order to serve the commercial area. Mr. Warren then presented the Planning staff 's recommendations, as follows: 1 . Street names to be approved by Planning Department prior to submission of final map. 2. All slopes to be planted according to city standards as designated by the City Planning Department. 3. Materials used along commercial alley planting strip to be approved by Planning Department. 4. A 7-foot easement shall be provided adjacent to front property line for street tree planting on all residential lots. 5. Sidewalk easement between lots 57-58, 67-68, 77-78 and 87-88 shall be omitted. Member Comstock asked about the lot sizes. Mr. Warren said they were just about 7000 square feet, generally 78 x 90 feet, on which they propose to build a 4-plex. Mr. Warren said he questions the need of the 10 foot sidewalk easement between lots, because it creates a maintenance problem. Principal Engineer Harshman presented the engineering recommendations as follows: 1 . Show the City limits upon the tentative map. 2. Eliminate 10 foot sewer easement as shown upon map • in the commercial area and show sewers to be placed within the public streets. It is suggested that re- payment contracts may be requested by the subdivider for portions of the sewer installed in Quintard and Palomar Streets. It is further suggested that the sewer located within the alley abutting the commercial property might advantageously be relocated. 3. Omit the proposed ten foot walk between Elmwood Drive and Birchwood Drive. Should the Planning Commission desire to retain the walk between Elmwood Drive and the alley, it is suggested that the entire width be paved with concrete and that five foot concrete block wall be installed on each side. 4. The subdivider shall dedicate an additional two feet on the easterly side of Third Avenue so as to be in conformity with current County requirements. The typical section shall be modified to show a ten foot sidewalk on Third Avenue. 5. Approval of this tentative map does not constitute approval of the drainage facilities as proposed. The Engineer of work shall submit drainage calculations concurrently with the improvement plans. Cleanouts and/or junction boxes shall -8- be required at every angle point in the storm drain system. 6. The existing drainage culverts under Second Avenue and Third Avenue are to be shown upon the tentative map. 7. The ten foot drainage easement which cuts diagonally through the commercial area is considered to be possibly detrimental to future use of the property. It is suggested that a re-alignment be considered which would allow better utilization of the property when considered as potential building sites. 8. Size and location of drainage easements shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. Design of the actual drainage facility shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. 9. Typical alley section shall specify P.C.C. as the paving material . 10. The standard note regarding design of the structural section shall be added to the map. 11 . On all existing streets , determination as to whether to remove and replace pave- ment or to re-surface existing pavement shall be made by the City Engineer. A note to this effect shall be added to the plan. 12. Minimum thickness of base material for structural street sections shall be 4 inches in all cases. 13. The sewage collection system shall be subject to assurance of completion of down- stream collection facilities by the Montgomery Sanitation District. 14. This subdivision is subject to all charges properly imposed upon the City by the Montgomery Sanitation District, for connection to the facilities of such District. 15. Funds shall be deposited with the City to insure planting of trees per City standards. Mr. A. Ring, Engineer for the project, accepted the recommendations; however, he mentioned that the 84 foot street right-of-way requirementsmentioned by Mr. Harshman had not yet been enacted. He added that the four-plexes, will be constructed on lots measuring 7200 square feet. Mr. Ring spoke of the drainage, mentioning that there is drainage crossing Third Avenue and it is evident that there was drainage across Palomar at one time. They have no objection, however, in revising the drainage as suggested by Mr. Harshman. The sewer in the alley could also be abandoned. They have double-sewered this at their own expense and have no objection to serving Quintard. Member Comstock questioned the adequacy of the three access points to the interior of the subdi=vision, saying there will be a great deal of congestion on these three streets. Mr. Ring said he limited access at the request of the City Engineer, so that inter- sections of heavily travelled streets could be kept to a minimum. Mr. Warren commented that minimum, but adequate, access to a subdivision would discourage through traffic and also creates a small neighborhood atmosphere. Mr. Lane Cole, City Engineer, noted there would be an estimated average of 650 trips a day coming out of each intersection whic would present no traffic problem. Vice-Chairman Stewart brought up the fact that a walkway access from Elmwood Street to the commercial area would serve a useful purpose for the people in the interior going to the shopping center. He asked if this shouldn 't be developed with concrete and screened with -9- block wall . Mr. Warren said it should be paved but perhaps not blocked in. Mr. Stewart maintained that there should be a masonry wall here, because if you don't have screening, it distracts from the residential area. MSC (Guyer - Stewart) Tentative Map be approved subject to the Planning and Engin- eering recommendations, with item#5 of the Planning recommendations and item #3 of the Engineering recommendations being consolidated to read: "The entire width of the remaining easement between Elmwood Drive and the commercial alley shall be paved and a 5 foot high block wall 'shall be constructed on both sides from the alley to the front setback of the residential lots.'' The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Guyer, Stb-wart, Johnson, Stevenson, Willhite and Adams NOES: Member Comstock - Not a good plan for multiple-type development. Street pattern is poor. - ABSENT: None MISCELLANEOUS La Bonita Town and Country Apartments - Bonita Road_ Member Comstock abstained because of a possible conflict of interests. Mr. Warren said this matter was referred to the Commission by the City Council . They questioned the parking adequacy and asked that an opinion be given by the Commission on this. '!.The Commission was also asked to render an .opinion as to whether or not the plan as submitted, if built, would comply with setback require- ments. Commission action earlier in this meeting would bring the plans into con- formance with setback requirements , if the Council approves such action. Mr. Thomas has submitted a plan whereby he proposes to have 12 parking spaces per unit; our ordinance requires 1 space per unit. In answer to Member Johnson 's question, Mr. Thomas stated the spaces would be 9 by 21 feet. He added that he had checked various developments thoughout the County and found most of them providing one space or less. Vice-Chairman Stewart questioned the number of employees that Mr. Thomas would have. He answered there would be one general manager, and maid service would be upon a contractual basis. He added that in a motel , one maid to kes care of 15 rooms , or six dwellings. Mr. Frank Ferreira , building contractor, asked that the parking requirements be approved as not more than 1 to 1 , as he felt this would hinder the apartment growth in communities. This would also establish a precedent. Chairman Stevenson commented that trailers require I! to 1 and in view of this, a large apartment with I to 1 ratio seems insufficient. Member Adams agreed, stating 12 to 1 for apartments is just barely enough. He added that contrary to Mr. Ferriera 's comments, he feels a study of the parking requirements for R-3 zoning in the. City should be made and a recommendation that 12 tol be considered. Vice-Chairman Stewart said that this particular parking problem has been solved by Mr. Thomas in providing 12 spaces to 1 unit. The Commission cannot impose more spaces; however, he added that there will probably never be a 100 % occupancy of the apartments and the vacancies will provide the additional parking spaces needed. -10- MSUC (Guyer - Johnson) Recommend to the City Council the approval of revised plot plan showing parking layout. Member Comstock abstained. The Commission offered no further comment on the architecture of the buildings. Letter from Stephen Gassaway A letter was read from. Stephen Gassaway, representing the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association asking that the Council and the Commission clarify the architectural control ordinance in the following aspects, as stated in his letter: "(1) Does the ordinance, in referring to architectural compatability with the surrounding area, apply to the number of stories that a building might have? (2) Is the ordinance defensible in court, or is it too ambiguous to be enforceable in its application to any specific architectural feature? (3) Would it not be desireable to amend the ordinance toiii mention specifically those architectural features to which the ordinance is intended to have reference?" MSUC (Stewart - Comstock) Letter be referred to the City Attorney and the Planning Staff for study. R-3 Parking Requirements The Commission discussed having a study made for the parking requirements in an R-3 zone. Vice-Chairman Stewart asked that the ASPO Advisory Service be used as a reference. Mr. Frank Ferreira suggested that offstreet parking not be increased, but that prohibit parking on the public streets after certain hours. MSUC (Comstock. - Stewart) A study be made by the Planning Staff, and a report given to the Commission, of the parking requirements for R-3 zones from one space per apart- ment to at least 1 '—z spaces. Street Name Change - Bonita Bel-Aire Subdivision A letter from Hart & Sons was read in which they request the Spanish names given their Subdivision be dropped in favor of the following names: Sandra, Linda, Jennifer, Carol and Bonita Bel-Aire. Vice-Chairman Stewart suggested the Spanish names be kept but the words for "street" - "Calle" and "Camino" be changed to "Drive" or "Road." Member Guyer agreed. Mr. Pat Hart explained the request for the name change and said time is of the essence since they are ready to order the street name signs. Mr. Warren stated it would take final Council action to change these names. Mr. Cole said he thought the Council could do this without a hearing if the Commission would indicate or agree to a name change. not Member Comstock felt there should/be a blanket approval of the name change, but should be referred back to the Commission. Member Willhite agreed the names should be changed, charging the present ones were "ridiculous." He said he spoke Spanish every day and could see where small children would have a difficult time pronouncing these names. MSUC (Guyer - Stewart) Acting Planning Director and the Subdivider meet and come to a mutual agreement, and the names they select be presented to the City Council . Discussion - Proposed Corporation Yard Site - Woodlawn and "F" Streets Acting Planning Director Warren said this matter was referred to the Commission by the Council . They have appropriated the money to buy this site, but have not, as yet, -11- approved it for a corporation yard. They would like to get the Commission's opinion as to whether or not„ the use of this site for a corporation yard would be an allowed use in a C-2 zone, As to the staff's recommendation, Mr. Warren stated this property could be approached under the present ordinance for a corporation yard site; however, if the Commission feels it couldn 't, they may desire to consider rezoning. When asked for his opinion, City Attorney Duberg said he would like to have time to study this and will then give his opinion. Member Adams asked for an answer right now, but Mr. Duberg said he would give a considered opinion in writing. Member Adams quoted from the ordinance, uner C-2, reading: "other uses which in the judgment of the Commission are si6ilar to and no more objectionable than any of those mentioned"; Mr. Adams cited several uses and felt the use as a corporation yard applied here. Vice-Chairman Stewart discussed the adjacent railroad tracks in the area and trains running here day and night. Member Comstock asked for a comparison between the yard site and the California Water and Telephone storage yard south of the property. Mr. Lane Cole, City Engineer, said he would give a resume of what the City yard operation entails: (1) repair vehicles - not major repairs as they do not have the equipment for this. They do tear down engines, doing valve jobs , etc. (2) sign painting , including storing street painting equipment; (3) traffic device technician, similar to a radio job; (4) carpenter 's shop; (5) do not have an electrical or plumbing shop; however, they do this work there; (6) dump trucks are parked here; (7) storage for blades, motors, dozers, etc. ; (7) Park department equipment is also housed in this yard; (8) gasoline pumps; (9) black top material used generally for patching; (10) sewer crew; (11) purchasing department; (12) street sweepers; (13) City cars; (14) surveying crew works out of yard. As to the comparison between 'the yard and the California Water and Telephone, Mr. Cole stated that California Water has heavier equipment and storage of numerous sizes of pipes, for one thing, in the yard which they must buy ahead. Chairman Stevenson commented that certain uses are allowed under C-2 zone with a con- ditional use permit, among them being a contractor 's storage yard. He felt this could be compared to a corporation yard. Vice-Chairman .Stewart stated that based on Mr. Cole's description, they could draw a parallel . He added it was a storage for mobile equipment and some storage of street material . These should be reviewed, and a resolution of approval could be based on this, or a conditional use permit. City Attorney Duberg suggested the Planning Commission pass a resolution and then he could consider this in his research. The Commission discussed adding this yard as a use in a C-2 zone. Objections were heard from Mr. Terry, Frank Ferreira and Ray Halpenny. They cited the different developments in the area and felt the corporation yard would not be compatible here. Mr. Warren and City Engineer Cole stated the solution to the whole problem lies in the fact that this is, without question, recognized as an M-1 use, and if the Commission agrees , they should set this for public hearing to consider rezoning. Mr. Cole said this was easily justified because the City must, at times, locate power stations , schools, etc. , and it is not easy to find a zone to serve this use; therefore, they must find a spot where it would be most advantageous to the City. Member Comstock stated he sincerely believes a study should be made of this area to determine whether or not M-1 zoning is suitable for this area. If M-1 zoning is justified, -12- the City's problem is solved. Mr. Cole asked that this matter not be held over until the meeting of November 4 because the time element was important. He asked that a special meeting be called to consider this rezoning. RESOLUTION N0, 287 Resolution of Intention to Set A Public Hearing for (Comstock - Johnson) October 24, 1963, to Consider Rezoning from C-2-P to M-1 (rnsuc� for Property located on the Northwest Corner of Woodlawn Avenue and "F" Street. Cancellation of October 21 Meeting Acting Planning Director Warren stated the meeting of October 21 falls on the day that all of the Commissioners will be in San Francisco attending the League of California Cities Conference. RESOLUTION NO. 288 Meeting of October 21 , 1963 be Cancelled and a Special (Comstock - Johnson) Meeting be Called for October 24, 1963. M sup Consultant Agreement The Commission discussed the Agreement proposed to engage George H. Fretz, former Chula Vista Planning Director, to act as Consultant in preparing and presenting the Sketch Plan. Member Comstock questioned the need for this service, and Chairman Stevenson said it was because Mr. Fretz has a personal , deep-rooted interest in the Plan and would like to see the thing through to its culmination. Acting Planning Director Warren explained that the department is under-staffed at present, and Mr. Fretz's judgment and assis- tance would be of great value to the Staff and the Commission. Vice-Chairman Stewart felt the City would be remiss if they did not see this through with Mr. Fretz. Chairman Stevenson suggested that the wording under the "program of work" be revised to read: "a. Study the sketch plan and other related documents of the master plan and make recommendations thereon." RESOLUTION NO. 289 Recommending to City Council Approval of Consultant (Stewart - Willhite) Agreement between the City and George H. Fretz Ms� e ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Willhite - Adams) Meeting be adjourned to October 24, 1963. The meeting adjourned at 11:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, /Jennie M. Fulasz Secretary