HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1967/08/21 MI~T. ES OF ~/~ ADJOURNED ~.A~TI~.G OF T5%E CITY
PLANNING COF~LISSION OF CHUI,% VISTA, C~-LiFORNIA
August 21, 1967
%~e regular adJou~'ned meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on the
above date at ? p.m. in the Council Chamber~ Civic Center~ 276 Guava Avenue,
with the following members present: Stewa~t, Gregson, Elco, Adams, and Guyer~
Absent: {'.~ith previous notification) Memb~rs York and Hyde. ,%leo present:
Director of P~anning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli~ Assist~nt Planner
Lee, City Attorney Lindberg, s~d Assistant City Engineer Gesley.
STATAIWd~NT
The Secretary of the Commission hereby states that she did post within 24
as req~.*'red by law, the order for the adjourned meeting of August ?:
~4SUC (Asag-~-G~yer) ~inutee of the ~leettng of Aug~st 7, lg6?, be approved~ as
mailed.
PUBLIC HF~ING - VARIANCE - 121 E. Queen Ann Drive - F-~erior Side Ye~;d $.~.tback
Reduction for ~" fence - Eonald and Bonnie U~he~r
The application w~s read in which a request was made for permission to construct
a 6 foot high fence on the property line along ~aeresa W~y startiD~ at the rear
property line and extending south to the front of the existing house.
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the pro-
posed fence and of the existing setbacks. He noted that the land slopes do~n
from the sidewalk to the rear and side yard, and that the applicants wish to
construct their fence on the property line which is located 2' from the sidewalk.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
The applicant stated he was present to emswer s~y questions.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
Member Adams cluesttoned whether it was necessea~ for the fence to be erected up
to the front of the hc,~se. He maintained that the object here is privacy screen-
iag for the back yard area.
~r. Ronald Usher, the applicant, remarked that it was only- necess~ for him to
screen the back area.
Chairman Stewart asked who would be responsible for m~intaining that area between
the fence and the sidewalk. Mr. Usher stated he ~uld maintain it.
The Comm/ssion concurred that this should be made a condition of approval.
b~,~,~ ~he fence w:Ll~ be ,J~r 25~ fr~;~ rte :b~:erse{t:Lon~
M~rn:r Szfbdivfsion~ ~t,~t[n,~ that
· ~¢r~ir.~ of 14~Lta ,M'e~iu~ ~d sorth
M~,~ e: i~.d_s.n~: felt the ~Dm:~5 ssicD
".,.,.T~e tot cf sio)?a, ~,.oE.~'" '- :~<r~ lo,~ ah,~,: k b~, ~'e~i~::i "c.,~ <..~ c~..~- ,' :~'ith 10~ ,,, '?:~.~<,..,
r,~,ct~,i ~f~l be a ~in~mum of 40
of co~ction to th~ ~ontg~e~y ~uitation District ~y~te:~ ~re
';he approval, of ~¥ch .~.istrlct. S~odivide:~ zheA1 p~'ovi~le plans to
~ineer. Upon apprcv~ cf s~'age cotlecti<~n ~yste=,~ ~ubdt~.~e? aheL,1
'~he ~,!eut, g~e~~ S~:it~tion Distrf~t ~d/'~r thc City EuEine~r p~-lor to
,~n the f[n~ mad ~y the C:~.ty Council.
3e~ign sh~ be aec~l~lished on the basis of providi~g on~ 6:%~' land
llt~ction d~'~ng p~ ~off ~,0~a a 10-~ye~:~-z' stoma expe~ts~c$.
,~ements sh~l be prov'idcd a~ req~3red b~' the City ~n~inee~-.
3~b~vider sh~l subm:~.t executed slope ~i/or acc~s e~seae~ts
~ropex%~ ~ers prior to approv~ of the ?in~2 ~,t.,
IE. SUbdivider sha}3~ gho~ 6 foot utility eac~aeuts at ~ea~ of ~,l
:~.t lottera ~ uti!i$;y ec:~ie:~ stat!~ that ea~;aa~nts a~e not
13. ,~l public improvea,ents shall be const~c':.cd subj,,ct to the s, pprow~l
City ~ineer.
f~NEX~TiON - Helm's Sweet-~ter V~lle.~ Annexation
Director of Plan~ing W~'ren dee].~ed thio was ~n~ of two it,s o~': tb.~s
concerned this ~e~: the approv~ of the ~nne-~ation smd a prezo~i~g request.
pss~ic~a~ ite~ is not a public he~ing~ however, the C~.~mtsslo~ m~~ %.i~h
c~eats ih'~ ~ interested parties. Mw. liar'~sn then srBmitted a plot
the area noti~ the ~nexation comprises 43.h ~cres, 38 cf whi~h b~long to
?ne r~aining acre~e involves streets ~d 6 p~cels south of ~.ita
were included in this ~e;~tion in order not bo create a Co%~t2
%%e st~ff ~s been informe~t that theze prop~rt~ o~*ners wor~ no~ notified
~c~ ~en~ Fo~tion C,~,~ssion that they ~e~'e beiDq~ i~cluded ~n this
D~ector W~ren then stewed that the st&fi y~comm~nds approve, oJ~ the
City Attorney Lindberg explained that the ~c~ A~ency For~%atio~
required to noti~y these p~operty ~ers, since ~hey ~o z.ot hawe bhs
~ property - mere~ the ~right to ~oprove or ~s~pro%~ sn
Chaiz~m~ Stewa~-t ~nnouneed that this w~ not g public he.,~ring, b'~t the
w~l~{ hear a~ c~¢n%~ ~one c~eR ~o ~e.
}~I?. Vincent ~el~, ~ttorz~ey representi~ the mplolice,~'~ts~ questioned whether the
~ix ~ot~ south of ~nit~ Eo~d wo~d beene a County islgu~d if not. made pc~t of
this a~e~tion mt thi~ t~e. Di~sctor Warren ~tmted it
Spe~:i~ in c~ppo~ition to ~he ~nexmtion ~ere H. L. O~Brien, 26~3 Bonita R~,
Peter~on~ 262h ~ocit~. Roe~, ~nest N~son~ 2606 P~nit~ Ro~,d, ~d Jo~ Robie. son,
tenant r~si&i~ in thc= ~ea. ~ney ~tated a~ !~heir r~t~mons: (1) they ~e l~eing
forced iu'~o this ~nex~'~ion against their wil~ b~cau~e the City .~mn~ot c~ekt~
isla~d~ ~2) th~' ~cceived a letter from the P]gnni~ Dep~'tment ~ few mont~
~ki~g th~ If the~ ~d WoJect to bei~ ~J~exed ~ even thouEh :~o~t of th?m
they h~ve ncm' received m letter ~tmti~ they ~t co~ into the City ~u~7;
J~st bee~z~me ~. E~ ~%shes to annex i~ no re~on why they should have to~
~o o~e h=~ gi~'~n them ~y informmtion t~rt~in~ng to %-hmt it is g~ing to co~t
to ~nez~ i.e., ~'~r cost~, t~o~es~ etc.; (5~ c~ot ~ee ~hing ~desir~ie
u~o~d~ m cowry i~l~dl {6) have lost confidcn(~e in the Pl~.nning C~im~ion
the City Co'~cil ~:hen they p~itted ~ high r,~tsining wall to be ~ud~lt in ~k
these homes by the subdivider of ~nita Cove~ (7) if t~e~ o~ of the
now, th~ ~y cc~ in on their o~ sometime in the
~. Ho~g~d Gesl~y~ Assistsmt City ~gine~r, stated th~,t these pr~oerty
will not ha'~e to ~y for the ~ewer ~til they rectally hook
~ne C~mmion dlzc'~sed the seizer costs involved.
Dire(~tor W~en e~lained that emch of these prope~y o~ers were0 sent m l~tter on
~ ]~, 1967, gi'~ng them the present t~ rate, etc. ~ g~d ~king th~ to i~ca~e
their interest by m~il or phone to this proposed ~nexmtion; one person c~lled
the others sent letters s~ing they weren't interested. ~. W~ren added
the z:t~f has ~ways been ~re th~ willi~ to get ~nate~er info?me, rich th~ people
w~ted.
City k~to~ Lindberg e~lained ~at it w~ not the policy of the City to force
~one into ~exing ~d it is n~ the po~y of the Locs~l z~en~' Fo~tio~.
~ssion to rec~end this. Under speei~ circ~stanceg~ the C~m. ission ~Eht
petit the creation of ~ iz!~d on m non--conti~o~ ~exation~ but he wo~d
serio~ question ~hether they co~d find ~ reason for creating ~ islmud in
this
Chmi~ St~ e~lained that since these people ~e on $~tic t~ th~- do
not Drove to h~k up to the s~er ~til such t~me ~ their t~ bec~es inoperable
~ when th~ ~t to h~k ~.
City Attorn~ ~ndberg affixed thie, c~enting that ev~n though the City h~
the ~thority to ~e the ~ope~y o~ers hook up onto the sewer~ it Is r~ely
~ne.
i~l~u~: th~ ~ubJect of !~z~ enforcsm~nt~ fire Drotection~ ztre~t ~e~In~
~s~t~E~c~ mtr~et s~eepi~, etc. You cre~t~ n~erous problem ~h~ you h~ve to
~top ~ one ]~rt of ~ street ~d then continue the City services ~th~r
the r~.
~e C~ssion d~sc~msed the fire ~d police p~otection present~' ~vmilmbl~ in
.:;his ~ea.
~ity ~.tto~ Lindb~rg c~e~t~d that the 8~:'e:- ch~-ge l~ based upon the let
Member ~ice felt the objections %~Iced by the Drot. est~nts, es~ci~ly in the
~tt~:~- of t~e$, se,~er chei-ges, etc. ~ sho~].d b~ c!eayed ~.
Nr. Fr~k E. Fe~*oira, 3715 Putter ~*ive, ~ni~a~ decl~ed that 5~*. O~Bri~
~ked to ~ex to ~nitm Cove ~d hi~ objections were the m~e theu ~ they
th~ ~:e not objecting bec~uso of the retaining wall probtcm.
Me~er Rice ~Lolained that his r~rks were not meant to b~ indlcativ~ of ~he
probl~ms enco~ut~red ~th t~ ret~ining w~ll - he here4' s~gest~.d the p~le
Oh~r~A Stewart felt that ~y of the proble~ raised here tonight by the prop-
e~'ty ~'n~rs opposi~ this ~nexation were m~ified, ~d eg~n ~p].s.!ned tk.~
~ces the City offers upon ~e~tion.
Director W~ren indicated that creati~ ~ isI~d was cont~'~ to Eo~
~fe ~dded that this m~tter mu~t go to the City Co, oil for action.
MSUC (~.~-G~er) Ree~end to the City Council the approve, of the He~
~tar V~lley e~ne~tion.
PUBLI$ HE~RING - PREZON!NG - Helm's S~eetwater Va].IeZ ~e~,tion - ~to C-2~
R-3 ~nd R-~
~e application w~ re~ in ~hich a rec~est ~as m~de for prezoning the B8 acres of
~d general~ locmted on the e~t side of ~lltop Drive ~d north of ~nita
Romd. ~e present ~ni~ is A(~)-i (Cowry) ~d the ~pplic~t is requesting pre-
zonin~ to C-2, R-3 ~d R-1.
Direct~ of P~ W~ren su~tted a plot pl~ noting the ~'ea to be prezoned.
He e~lained that the applicant ~s ~8 acres of this ~e~tion ~d the st~f
h~ ~ded the six lots on the south side of Bonita Road to this prezoni~ rcq~t
mince it is p~ of the ~exatiom. ~. W~re~ th~n noted where the I~d Fre*-
~ wi~ traverse the no~heast ~rtion of the pr~e~y ~d ~-ill ~li~nate
approxi~te~ lB acres of the ~nexation,
~'ea ~he~'e the ~ee~ ri~t-~of-~, i~ not p~'ch~sed. ~e State Highw~
ne~t h~ info.ed th~ City that th~ aliment in this ~a h~ b~en defi~ed~
ao~· t~e fl~ ch~el ~ght be ch~ed.
~r~ ~;~rren ~dded t~t after ~tu~tng th~ ~ot~o~ed n~ zoning ordln~c, f~r
t~s~ the C~melon rec~nded to th~ Co~oil the ~doption of the C~V
howevor~ the Co.uti! did not sdoDt this or~Llnsnc~. ~I~.e e~p~c~ is requ~ti~
C-2 moni~ in lieu of this C-V zone, .At the prescott tin~e~ th~r~ ~'e ~lrea~y
over ~ine ~r~m of l~d ~t this proposed int~rch~ge zoned fo~ r~tail
~ ~ for which a n~d ~ not b~en ~st~bliz~h~d. A~~ ~oA~thor r~quest~ for
~merci.~& zoni~ i~ '~ls ~ea shouted be subject to the C~V zoning. Mr. W~rtn
r~-*'le~ed the ~lic~nt~s req~t~ stati~ that the ~t~ff ~r~es ~'ith the E~l
Quest~ ho~e,~er ,the tri~gl~sha~d p~el no~h of Bo~it~ Eo~d i~ z~,c~re suit~bi,
for singte~f~d~- sub~visio~, ~d it ~,ould b~ more c,~p~tible ~th the
nei~borhood ~ross the str~t.
S~e ?c~a of m~tipl~f~ Is appropriate for that ~n~a ~t of Hillt~ L~rivc;
ho~ever~ bec~se of the severity of the topogr~pl~' mc, re depth would be needled to
~ate~ devel~ the ~ea~ ~erefore, the staff rsc~uend~ t~%~ m density
trol be p~ced on ~y of the proposed R-3 ~oning in th~ ~rea ~l<}~g ~ith the
~one ~- the ~t~f rec~en~ th~ R-~D zone for that ~'e~ upon which the
im re~sted. ~. W~em n~ I ; ,~...t'_, ~ ~f bh~ ?~,~-~, would have to h~e the
?-2 - flood plan zone a~m~cz~e~ '~;o it also. ~e staff ~.so recommends th~*; set-
~ack~ be estmb~shed ~t 25~ for ~ streets ~til zuch time ~s pie,~.~ ~s sub.trod
~hich wo~d J~ti~ m reduction.
~niz being the time ~d plaice az ~dvertis~, the public he~lng ~a~
~. Vincent ~el~, ~ttorn~ representing the applicant, stmted that they ~:~e try-
i~ to "c~st~. b~l" the events that ~ill eventually h~pen here. With the
freew~ co~g thro~, it will ~e this em. es p~tic~e, rly vzl~fo:~e. ~ ~ppli-
ce~t objects to the star's reco~endation for R-1 zoning for the tri~ug~:~-
shaped p~cel north of Bonita Road. ~y claim it is a ve~ difficult pie~:e of
property to d. evel~ aa R-l, and bec~e the ~.a across the street is R-1 ~:hould
be no re.on to recommend the $~e for this property. ~. ~el~ felt the people
obJecti~ to this ~e sro doi~ so, not became they feel it wo~ld depreci~te th~
value of their h~es~ but rather that th~ ~e concerned that some low~cl~s
velopment will go in. He ~shed to ass~e them that it will not be a cheap de~
velopment~ but ~ attractive one which ~ll improve the ~e~ ~l ~ound here.
~elmn ~en disc~sed their requested 0-2 zoning ~d ~.n reiterated that
~aphy ~ auoh that w~d not pe~it a~ cheap development to go in. '~e om.ly
ones that co~d object to a c~erci~ devel~ent here would be the ch~ch, ~d
they hmve voiced no objection.
~ose objectl~ to the prezonl~ were: ~nest N~son, 2606 Bonit~ Ro~; Askew
H~J, 22 Omsse~ Street; H. W. Johnson, 2636 ~nitm Road; Jo~ Robinson, a
tenet in the ~ea; R~ R~, 15 "D" Street; ~w~d St~ford~ 98 Hi.top Drive~
~d H. L. O'~ien, 26B0 ~ni~a Road. ~eir objecttonz ~rere: (1) to the
aching for the tria~le-zhaped p~cel due to the width of ~nita Ro~d. Ap~ments
_~ay,~ have 'oarki~ pro%,.~ since the reqttir~ents now i,~ lb spaces per
~it ~d to~'~ f~lies h~vc more ta~ one c~ therefore, the2 ~d be
~% on th~ road; (2~ there is no ne~d for ~ f~thsr co~erci~l or R-B zoning
~ince there is ~ ~o~c~ cf this zoned property 4'tng idle in tho City~
shoed w~It ~til the fresw~~ is developed before zoni~ it; {4) "E" Street ~ten-
l~,~e for the R-1 ~d R-3 ~d ~ot Bonft~ Road~
~lon ~hould b~ the dividing
~hase,i their hom~s ~;~n this area because it ~,~ a beauti~ si~t,~f~i~ ~'ea
ap~tD~ents wo~.d not ~s co~attble; ~6) R-3 s~d C-2 zoning would bri~g out ~%dded
tr~fic problem.
Director W~Ten tnfo~ed the C~ssion of the letter ~cm the County Plmu~ing D~-
ps~tmsnt protesting the req~st for co~erci~, prezoning in the
Tb.~re b~Img no f~,~th~r corm~nt ~ ~ith~r for or ~ain~t ~ the he.ring ~ dec~
closed.
City Attorney Lindberg z. sked if the ~tter of prezoning -~s,s pres~nted to
~cmt Agen~~ For~u~tion Co~ission. Director W~ren said it w~ not; howevsr~ it
w~ i~dicmted to the~ that the applic~t would be aa~ng for ~'~ co~eyci~
~4~b~r G%5~e~ r~ked that in vi~ of the l~mge ~o~ts of C-2 ~'~d R-3 l~d
avallab!e~ wo~d it ~rk ~ h~hip on the e~plic~t to prezone the ~ea to
B-l, ~d then re~ona it at z~m later dat~ to ~other zone when the need
M~ber A~ crated n_ wo~d go ~ong with the st~f% reco~endations for ~re-
zoning.
~. W~,en c~nt~d that the rec~endations for the R,-3 ~eas ~-c,~d be w..tn the
density ~d design control plus the attac~ent of the flood p~in
~o Co~ssion byief~' discussed development in the fle~ plain zone.
Tee C~ission ~scussed the need for co~erci~ zoning in this ~ee., ~d
e~-ed that present~j there w~ enoch c~erci~ land available in the
a, rea to aceo~odate nee~ for som~ t~e. Shoed the applicant h~%ve a need for
"C-V" zo~ sometime In the ~t~e, he could come in ~d request a ch~ge of
RESOLD~ION NO. ~76 Reaolution of the City Pl~uni~g C~.ssion Reco~en ~g to
MSUC {G~er-A~s} City Co.oil the ~ezo~i~ for ~opez~y Kuo~m as the Helm%
Sweet.tar V~i~ ~e~t!on ~ ~1(3) to R-1 ~d R--~3-D
~th the F-a zoni~ attached to a ~rtion of this ~operty
Findi~$ b~ as foll~s:
a. Subject ~ea is in ~e ~cinity of the pr~omed interch~age of ~nita Road ~d
Intestate 805. Construction of the Fre~ will so ch~ the ch~acter of
this ~ea that the prezo~ ~ reco~ended is necess~ to pe~it prier
planni~ for the ~ti~ta l~d use,
~ne trian~tlar a~ea, for which R-3 was requested.~ ha~ been studied by the
Planning and Fmgineering staffs who COhO:iv that the p:~operty ee~ ea~iiy ~cc,~-
modate a single-family subdivision. R-I zoning would be more compatibl~ with
the single-family neighborhood across the street.
5~,e six parcels across /k-o~ the triangle (south side of Bonit~
sJ_so bear the R-1 classification because of their existing single-fami!:r re~i-
d.<ntlal lan~ use and the single-fs~ai!y land use around them.
d. ~is import~t interch~ge ~rea will be within mlnate:~ cf ~y emDloy~e:t
centers in the County a~d thus ~l!l meet a d~m~a~ud for c~os~-in al?selling
While th~ General Plan places much of this area in s~ ~edi~n density
f~milies per acre) category, the density and design control ~ttached to the
E-~ zoning will promote development compatible with the ~.dJac~nt singl~f~mi~y
~eas and will carry o~t the intent of th~ Plan.
~. Ultimmtely~ m portion of thin level area adjacent to the Free-~ay m~y be suit~
~.ble for to~rist-oriented commercial u~e, but an ~opropriat~ zone to provide
such use is not yet available.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING -- 7'~7 Fo~mrth Ave~nue - R-1 to
The application w~s read in which a request w~ ~de i~or a ch~g~ of zone ~rom R~.t
to E-3 for the rear ~rtion of the pr~erty ~o~ti~ on ~77 Fo~th f~.venu~.
Director W~en su~itted a plot pl~ noting the loc~tion, a~e~t l~d ~m~
zo~. He stated t~t the ~ea ca~ot legibly be developed ~ R-1 becs~e of
the !mck of ~c~s. ~e Gener~ Pi~ desi~te~ this entire K Street fron~m~e
tween ~ird ~d Forth Avenues as me~ density~ however, this zoni~ is
re~imtic ~d the conm'~t~ts have retreaded that this be ch~ged to a h~gh
density residenti~ classification. ~s ~em is p~t of a l~g*r p~ce: ~hich
p~posed to be split ~ this prope~y ~d ie the subject of a ~ri~uce r~Quest
followi~. ~is p~cel wi~. be developed together with the rece~t~ zoned
p~cel to the e~t. ~e st~f is rec~ending R-~D zoning.
~is bei~ the time ~d place ~ advertised~ the public heari~ ~as open~d~
In ~swer to M~ber Gregaon's inQ~, Director W~r~n noted the v~.c~t l~d to
the south shoed ~so be zoned R-B ~d the C~ission n~y w~t to initimte action
to rezone this.
~. Chiles Bix~, 555 Davi~on~ spe~i~ for the applic~t~ stated they tried to
b~ this v~t piece of property but could not come to te~ with the o~er~
T~e o~ers, h~ever, do not object to the R-~ zoning.
M~. A. L. S~ B88 K Street, crated he w~ in f~vor of the R-3 zoni~ for this
p~cel - it ~d be the best ~e for it.
~s. Ma~on ~l, 890 K Street, favored the zone
~:ho~e bei:~ no fan,her eo~,ent, ei%he~ for or a~inat~ th~ he~i~.g w~ deepened
~4~u~b~r lii~ felt it ~ ~ lo~i~l d~ve!o~m~t fo~ ~p~rtment~. ~e Co~sfon
.~O~JgTION ~0. ~77 Resolution of the City PD~ing C~mi~sion R~eo~en~Jng ~o
~C ~G~gson~Eiee ) the City Cocci! the Ck~ga of ~ for th~ He~' Po~'~ion~
Property Fronting o~ 777 Fcr~th D. vsnue
Findi~.~s be as follows:
~. %~2ile th~ Genera. Plan designates the ent?~ M Streeb ~ont~e bet%~sen Thi~,d
a~d Fc,&vth Avenues ~s ~-sii~. densi~~ resi&~mti~J ~hich coffee,ponds to
i~ ~i~ closer ztu~es of individu~ ~re~m of the City, both the
t ~nts and the st~ff ~ve concluded thmt th~ GeneroA Ple~ ~nd tlc z<n~i~
~m~ld be ~tered to reflect a high densit~~ residential (R~3) clo~slfi(~ti~n
f~r the ~ea.
b. The Ci%y recent~ approved B-3 zoni~ for the e~sterly abutting property
a v~ie~ce for the con~t~etlm~ of m~tiple d~zellir~ ~its o~ the soutk side
~ of K Street in ~e i~ediate -~cinity of the subject pr~e~y.
e. Th~ subject property c~n. ot be fee~ib~ de~eloped for E-~l ~ge becauz~ of
tee lack of access.
~ dB.,~I{, HEARING - VARIANCE- _~u.l ~,h .&venue - feeb - Hi!da Jemu_~!!~
The applic~tion wms r~d in ~hich a request wa~ mdc for pemisslon to cre~e ~
lot c~nte~ning 6436 aqu~s feet by severing this proceed p~cel ~ m l~ger lot
leavi~ t5,775 sq~'e feet in the rs~.
Director of Planui~ W~ren stated the Co~ssion Just approved a zone chmuge for
this re~- p~cel. ~e lot contains m single-f~ily residence ~d ~%~d r~tain
its f-1 cl~sification. ~. W~ren then submdtted ~ plot plan noti~ the ~ea
and th~ proposed lot sp~t. He felt it ~o~d '~rk a hmrS~hlp on the ~ppli~:~t to
red, re more sq~'e f~t~e th~ that requested.
~lis being the time ~d place as ~dve~ised~ the public l?earir~g was opened
..... ~-~.~ , e ,~ ~ainst~ th~ he~ir~g wa~ decided el,~sed.
M~ber A(~ s~ted it ~ o~io~ that this wa ~e prier thing to do he?e mad
t~t it oert~n~ q~ified ~ a v~i~ce.
T~e C~ssion ~eed.
)~UC (Ad~-Rice) V~i~ce be approved. Fim~ng~ be ~ follows:
to the south.
~;y i~woD~ed or to th~ i~t~nd~d ~ or ~v~lop~nt of '~e p~op~'by thsYc ~i~ not
Tb.e lot, i~ ~eaciy !33~ deep ~d there is .~o u~:efs~t ~pose !~.
'ghis ~pth.
~. That the ,f~r~tiP~ of a ~m;ciauce -~ill not be ~.teri{0,~]y de'tr~mo~:t.~3~. ~o '~he
In ~hlch the prope~y is
Ther~ %~o~ld be no detrimental! ~feet to th~ ~etg~c~bood sizable this
~onforms to that which ~.sts in th~
d~ ~iSat the ~ting of a v'~'i~,ce %~ not b~ comtnu%' to the obJ~cti','es of th~
Gener~
Tbs General Pl~ would ~ot be ~ffected ~- the ~ppre'?s1 of this r~qt%~st
M3BLiC i~/~iNG - VAEIANCE - 18~ Minot Street - R~ductlo~ in side setback 5' to 1
~e ~pplicati~ w~ re~d in ~ich a x~yae~t +:~ ~de for ~ reduction of si~e
s~tback frem 5' to 1' te ~.ntain ~ existi~
Director of Pl~ni~ W~en su~itted a plot plau noting the loc~bion of tb~ e~ist-
tr~ e~. ~e lot is ioeated on the west side of ~inot Average a~i. roxi~:~tely
19O' no~h of "E" Street ~east~i~ 51' x 339' - a ~or portion of this lo~ slopes
do~ into a c~on. ~. W~en referred to the sequence of events concerm.~g this
violation, ~ r~rted in the et~f c~me~ts. At one time the ~fq01ic~ut l~,g~lt~~
convsrted his g~e for residentt~ p~ses and h~e since constructed ~
~e~-e ts a 5' side y~d (2' overh~g !~r~tted} requirement and ~e overh~g
constructed to l' ~ the property line; the overh~g should con~ no cloc~.~r
3~ fr~ the prope~y line in order to confo~ to or~n~c~ requJ~:~ents,
s~porti~ m~bers wo~d hav~ to ~ back 5'. ~e ~pplic~t on3y h~s I1~
the ~ide of the ho~e ~d ~e property line. ~Is is ~ older subdi~.sion ~rith
R-2 zoni~; the lots ~e ~t~ deep ~nfn~ d~ into ~ c~yen.
~Is bef~ Zhe time ~d place ~ advertised, the public he~ing ~a~s opened~
}&v. Robin Dally, l~R Mlnot~ living ~d~¢~ent to the bourne ~u the zo~h~ ~k~d to
h~ve ~ letter r~d which he sub~tted to the st~f. He erp~i~cd th~ in ~h~
letter he referred to a. portion of Mr. ~i~l~'~ ccn~trucbion be~ over o~ hi~
property - ~ this he is referri~ to a fence ~d a portion of the
A letter ~ ~. Da!~ w~ then read in ~hlch he ~tate~~ that th~
fence ~d c~rt ~-ivew~,.y have c'~taiied th~ ~se of his o~ ~ive~:-~ th~: the
~pplic~t's struct~:~e e~s~ over his property line. He ~cuss~l '~e
tion ~th ~. Fnle!e~ and [.~.tho~,~ th~ ~pplic~t w~ notified of this i]~l~gal
operation by th~ City ~lddr~g I~psctor, he h~ negl~'t~d to ~k~ ~'
~:~es d~u~i~ the p~mt s~zer~ months.
~. ~cis ~isley, ~8~ ~inot Avenue, the appkic~t~ ~t~t~d h~ w~ ~ot ~ve
~ obJectio~ to his app~c~blon ~til this evening. E~h~r th~n to have ~y
~ffic~ty ~ith hi~ neighbo~-~ he is ~zl~l~ to do ~hat~v~r is right to
~t~tion.
There bei~ ~o ~ther c~nt, either for o~· ~n~st~ th~ pnb!ic h~ir~ ~'~
closed.
~ber A~ ~kmd if th~ appllc~t checked ~ith the B,~i~ding In~pector ~h~n h~
com. structed this c~ort.
~. ~isl~ stated he had m pe~t to b~.ld this in ~tue 1960 to build the
portion of the ~iveway ~d the b~se for this.
~irm~= St~t ~ked if he obt~ned a buildi~ pe~it, ~d ~hsther it
th~ buil~ being l' ~'~ the pr~erty line.
~. ~isl~ decl~ed he did obta~ the b~l~ng pe~t, but got into ~ff~[culty
with it ~er b~l~ m potion of it, ~d out of error~ he co~leted
~. W~en e~l~ned that he did receive a pe~t to build this c~ort, but
where ~o~ the line, ~ error ~ ~de, and the st~ct~ ~eB not coo.fo~ to
the pe~t.
M~er G~er ~ked if the app~c~t had s~ficient r~ on the rear of his lot
b~ld this c~ort by relocati~ his patio. ~. K~sley indicated he did; ho~-
ever~ it ~d entel m ~e~t de~ of ~rk ~d e~en~e in h~ng to t~ ~ the
ooncr~te, ~t~.
M~ber G~er r~ked that he co~d see no exception~ cir~tences here that
~uld ~r~t the O~ssion ~mti~ this ~i~ce.
~ber ~d~m~ ~reed, adding that it ~ inexorable to b~ld over his n~ighbor's
prope~ line.
Direct~ W~rem indicated that the app~cant ~uld h~ve to cut 2' off his roof
to co~o~ to the or~ance. ~is wo~d leave ~ 8' wide
~i~mber Adams referred to the plat showing a 10' wide car?o~ and ~ommented that
if the aDpltcemt co~o~ to that ~d st~s 1' ~ the ?~op~y iine~ he
b~ intoned to go ~o~ wt~ the request .... ~s~ci~ly ~inc~ there wer~ no
ttons ~ ~y of the
C~i~ Stew~ state~ that his nei~Y did
~r. ~isley ~cated ~t ~e posts to th~ ~t~cture w~¥,~ 1' ~.om the property
line to '~e best of him ~le~e. He ~ed th~ e~sti~ fence as e. ~ide in
te~in~g this. He ~-ther stated that ~e City ~inee~'m cut the o~b ~ud set
it up; that he ~ mothing more a~ut it tha~ what they told h~.
~e Co. salon ~sc~md ha~ag the applie~t eoztfo~ to the ordi~ce. ~.
Stewa~ ci~d that if the applic~t ~ved his ~sts back to 5' ~ the
lin~, his c~ox~ would be on~ 6' ~.de. M~ber A~ felt if the applie~t
co~d keep l' ~ the a~oi~ prop~y li~e ~nd keep his c~o~ at 10' wide:~
it ~o~d be ~ right. He felt this wo~&d n~ be tnterferri~'~g ~th the n~ig~oor~s
~e of ~s ~ ~ivew~.
D~-ector W~en c~ented thet these ~e the figures ~ich were given the
~d th~ must ~s~e th~ ~e co.eot. If the C~ssion ~ts this
whether the c~rt gets built on the prope~,y line, or aw~y fro~ it, or at the
fence~ or whatever, wo~d be of no ~ee~ to the
~e Commission discussed a recent '~i~,nce x~quest which they denied ~ich
s~l~ to this request.
City Atto~ey Lindberg stated that if the vmri~ce were denied, there ~ould be no
re~so~ble w~ to m~ke ~e of the c~o~, ~d therefore it wo~d ha~e to be re-
moved. You wo~d then be le~ with ~e converted g~e which occ~'~'ed before
the or~n~ce went into effect, but no c~o~. At the present time, the or~n~ce
seeks to ret~n a g~e, ~ in ~eu ther~f, a ~ab!e c~. ~. Lindberg added
that they co~d not force the a~c~t to build a e~o~, in ~e re~ of his
pr~erty or ~here else.
The C~ssion ~sc~sed the e~sti~ fence ~th the epp~caut. Mr. ~l~ slimed
it is on the ~e~y line, that it w~ thee mt the t~ he p~mrche~ed the prop-
e~y in 19~9.
~. D~ r~ked that the fence c~es ~ to ~e patio ~ne; it does not cc~e
to the g~e. ~. D~y ~ked the C~t ssion not to ~e a decision about the
l' setback ~til th~ ~re sure ~ere the pr~e~y line was.
M~ber ~ s~ested m continues ~til such time ~ the propm~y line co~d be
located. ~ ~d ~ve to have a s~ ~de.
M~ber Rice c~ented that ~ that ~ pe~inent at this time ~ if th~
this v~i~ee for l' ~ the prope~y ]~ne ~d it w~ fo~d out that the line
~ ~o~, the applic~t would end up with a 9'
City ~ttor~ey Lindberg stated this w~ ~rue - ,~h~t there is a Cctspuge here
g~ng the pr~y &ine ~ the C~i~'$ ooncer~ ~m~ b~ wi~h ~he
prope:~ line
~. ~i~l~ c~enged t~t he Jn~t dl~ou~s~ t~ is ~ith ~. Deley au~ w~s told
thm~ if he ~ve~ ~he fence 1~ over on h~s ~n ~ro~e~y, H?. D~.ey wo~ hav~
objection.
~,~ L:.n~be~g stated this wo~ no~ be ~.ght b~ e~ume it ~uId be ~J:~$~ng t~t
are movi~ the fenc~ 1' o~to ~. ~i~ley~s pro~er~;y, ~d ~;h~ c~p~t ~ it
is auypome~y omc foot from the prope~f line~ ~aat ~dJu~nemt i~ ~he one ~hat
co~ce~ the C~smion .~ ~ha~ o~.e froot ~ t~ e pr~Lr
M~ber ~.~ c~eate~ thmt i~ h* is ~t~re~ ~o get ~ b~il~ per,it to e~p!ete
thin, th~ c~ pu~ in ~ com~tiom that he '~o~ have to f:hotr proo~ ~ to wh~?e
prope~y ~ne
Di~-eeto~* W~ren indicated t~t the b~l~ng ~pec~ion ~el~a~tmont wo~d geg
of the '~t~ee that was g~-~ted and they' wo~l~ h~ve to Inspe~; in
th~ ~m'i~ce thmt ~s grated.
MS (A~-Rice) Vari~ce be approved ~o~ reduction of st~ y~d s~tb~ck fro~ 5
~' for '~he ~st~ce it w~ necess~ to b~ld ~. c~ort o~.' to ~t~n a
Directo~~ W~en s~emted the fine.Em be in r~g~d to th. ~idth of the lot, the
~st~ce bergen the dwelling ~d the pro~y lin~, th,~ dec, ire of the City to
provi6m c~o~s to cover c~-s ~ etc. ~ber Ad~ asked ~h~t th~ findings 0c
eluded in the ~tion.
The m~,tion f~led to c~ by ~ fo~o~ing vo'~:
AYe: M~bers A~ smd Rice
Member G~er (no ~t~s~al
M~ber Gr~gson (he ~o~d lik* to see a ~;~'vey ~d* First~ ~o
both property c~wners w~d ~ where the>- stoo~d~
Mamber Stewart (~e C~mis~izn h~ recently t~'ned do~ au
plice.~ion fo~ ~ newly ~:~n~t~t~d p~tio
~bers Hyde ~d York
~e Ck~i~ r~nded the ~pplic~t oF his right to
The ~pplicatlon ~ r~d in ~k~ch a ~que~t ~ ~de for pe~ssion to ~plit the
l~ oo~t~dning 127~0 mqmu-e feet ~ foll~m: app~te~ 7,~10 sQ~ feet
for the oon~tructicn of a duplex, ~ud aDp~'o~lmmtely 5,460 sg~e feet for the
Director of Pl~i=g W~re~ smbmitted m pl~ pl~ noting the locatio~, ~ent
l~ud u~e and zoning. He sho~ed h~ the a~lica~t ~posed to sp~t his 1~, ~d
~t~¥~d tZ~ the st~f~ wo~d r~co~end the re~rse - that the duplex Be c~st~cted
~t th, ~o~h end of~ the lot ~d the si~!~f~ dwe~i~ at the south end. He
~o reqYe~ted th~t the lot split ~mensions ~d pl~ pl~ of ~l the
be ~ub~ttted to th~ staff flor ~.ppr~.
Jh~ St~-~art felt the ?equest w~ re~able but that more space sh~d be
~ilvo~ thc single-fsliC' lot.
~n~.~ b~irg the tim~ ~d place ~ ~dve~ised, the public he~ing -~as ~ened.
:~r. Jo~ B~leisl~, 561 Moz~ Street, stated he is -~lling to ~nt~n a 20' set-
b~ck, b~!t wi~l b~ b~lding his st~ct~re B0' fr~ the prope~y li~e. He felt this
lO~ cles~x'~ce could be '~e~ a~ a p~ktng space. He info~d th~ C~ission that
hs ~-~ d~ing his ~.~ desig~i~gaud building.
_ Th~ C~sion folt bhe Io~; split w~ fe~ible, If done pr~erly. Chzi~
01~?.::tor ~r~Ten s:~gcsted ~. confine:ce so that th~ stm~ co'~d wo.rk ~th the
p3ie~ut ~n re~slnE his pl~s.
~r~ P~l~f s:[~ ~t~J~C it would work a h~dship on him if the Co~mion continued
prove th;~ p~-ki~.
:haI~ ~ Ste~:e~ felt they should ~et ~ mini~ ~3q~e fo~ge for th~ R-1 lot.
~?iz'r~etor ~7arren co~ume~&ed-;h~,t it w~s regvett~!~5.e that he didn't have the
on,~ of them woulf~, be ~ det~f.m~ut to m~
r,~e~ber A4~s fott %he lot '~': %0o l~'ge for <~ houces, too sram! fo~: 2 duplexes, smd
~c :~t 93:qtfies fo:~ a vari
C~t:'~: Ste:mrt noted t~.:: 7'~000 squ~:~ f~t 1~ the :~e requSrei~eot for ~::~
put c~n t::~ R-~2 lot ~nd the r~s:~iud*r on th~ B~l, ~d the other d~tsil~: left to
thc .~t~tff bo at~?~'o're. He ~.dded that the appllc~ h~s a 27' rear y~d setback
~ '~h~: <:?di:.~ee req?~:~res 15~.
~'~£UC {Gt:Far,.Rice} V',riance be al}proved t~} split the lob sontainin9
~:he construction of a sing!e---fa~':~ily dw~ili, ng~ Vax'ianc~ !.s
s~;bject to the feliowing conditions,:
9be duple:{ s~ail be cons[~ructed a'~ ~he nor~h ~nd ef the lot and
the single-faultily dwelling at the so¥~th end~
2. 93he ~xact di~ens~.o%%~ of the lot split shall be sub.]~ct to ~taff
approval.
T}le plot p!aR of ail build~lgs shall be s%~z~it%ed for staff
vel prior %0 the issnence of a building
Findings be as follows:
a~ Thet the strict application of the zoning regula[~i.~}ms or require-~
ments would result in particular difficulhi.es or unnecessa~ hardships
i~'consistent with %ne general parpose end in%en{~ ef %he regulations~
This is a large lot zoned R~-.2 which cannot ke spliz without
variance being granted.
b. That there are exceptional circ~u}~sta~ces or c~nditions applicable
to the Droperty involved or to the i:]ten~ed use or development of
propezty that do noh apply generally to other [7:loperty in khe
_ zone cr neighborhood~
Tko lot will. be developed at an overall density less th~3~
R--2 zoning would allow. ~he lot is the sa%~e size ~s the
erty directly to the nortl% wP, ich was developed with rowe
duplexes and subsequently split~ pr~obably a'[ a tim~ whe~
Acts required a minin~um of 6~.0~0 square feet.
c~- That the grs. nting of a variance will not be meterisi!y
te the peblic welfare or injurious to property cr in~prsvememt~ in
_~one er neighborhood in which the property is
This development would be si~ilar to existing constz~ction
in the area.
d~ ?hat the granting of a varisnce will not be centra~;y to the
tires of the General Plan.
Does not affect the General Plan,,
-17-
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - 816 Fifth Avenue - Construct dwelli_nq with
frontage on an easement - R. and L. Stonebraker
The application w~s read in which a request was made for permission to
build a single-f~ily dwelling on a 20' easement at the rear of the
lot at 81~J Fifth Avenue.
Director of Plann~ng Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location,
adjacent land use, and 2oning. He explained that this dwellinq would
be served by a 20~ wide easement which would par,~llel the south prop-
erty line. The lot measures 65: x 110' which would be created by split-~
ting the existing 65' x 245' square foot parcel.
Director ~arren then ~iscussed the adjacent rear lots, noting that they
have the same 245' depth and the only way to serve any of these rear
lo~s areas is by a side access - a full street is not feasible~
Warren suggested ~ possible way to develop the rear portions of these
Sots. ~I=_ then reviewe~ the conditions the staff would recommend for
approval o
This being the time and place as advertised~ the public hearing was
opened.
Mr. C. E. Fuson, stated he owns the large lot fronting on K Street~,
and it has always been his intention, as well as some of the property
owners in the area, to combine the rear portion of the lots and sell
it to someone who would develop it as one unit.
Me~er Adams asked him if he would be wiilin~ to furnish access to this
area from his lot. ~. Fuson stated he would - he has 80' of width
and he could provide a ~0' access. The existing house on the lot is
now ~cented, but his piaLs are to have this house removed in two or
~ree years ~ time ~
Mr~ Stonebr~ker co~,~mented that he had an opportunity to sell his prop-
erty to the developer of ~he area to the south; however~ this developer
did not %~,ant to meet hie price.
Chairman Stewart ~ug~ested the owners of the four parcels in question
get together and hav~ a meeting of the minds an~ get someone to develop
this area° Mr~ Stonebr~ker felt this would just prolong the matte~
but he would be willing to go along with it if it doesn't just "sit
for five or ten years. Chairman Stewart assured, him that it
that this should be carrie~ over to the next meeting.
Director Warren s~-ated ~e would arrange a meeting with the property
owners in the arena as soon as possible an~ report back to the ComI.~is~ion
at t~e next meeting.
MSUC (Guye~-Rice) Continue this hearing to the meeting of SeFte~£Qer 6,
1967, in order that the staff may set up a meeting of the adjoining
property owners with a ~oal towards achieving a common development of
the ~ear portions of t2~ properties in this
-18-
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - 383 Vista Way - Reduction in rear setback
20' to 7' - f~-~rd Anderson, Jr.
The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction
in rear setback from 20' to 7' for the purpose of constructing an ad-
dition to the dwelling.
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location
and the area for the proposed construction. Mr. Warren stated that this
lot was part of a 6 lot subdivision for which a variance was granted in
1958 to reduce the lot sizes from 7,000 square feet to 6,662 square
feet. If the applicants construct the addition as proposed, they will
exceed the maximum 40% coverage as allowed by ordinance. Therefore,
the staff recommends that the setback be reduced to 8%' instead of the
7' r~que£ted, which would peIl~it a 20' x 28%' addition, thus confounding
to the ordin~ce,
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing w~s
opened.
The applicant~ ~o Edward Anderson, Jr., stated he was present to
answer any qu~stionSo
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was
declared closed°
Member R~ce commented that he can sympathize with the applicant in
wanting ~}~ore house room and being on a small lot to begin with~however~
he felt ~e lot housed as much structure as should be permitted, and
building close to the property line might jeopardize access for emer-
gency vehicles.
Chairman Stewart asked if ~he land to the east could feasibly be re-
develope~ so that an encroachment of this property would~rove e~b~r-
rassing in the future°
Director Warren answered that it was large enough to be developed in
one form, but that it might not be by a typical subdivision pattern°
He added that it probably could be assumed that any old house on a large
parcel could be ~ed~velopedo In this case, it doesn't seem to be in
such a state that it would come soon. The staff~ however, is recommend-
ing approval~ noting that there is considerable open space adjacen~ -
tkat th~? are still maintaining 60% of open space on their property~
an~ because the lot is shallow and undersized~ it is impossible to make
any othe~ single-.story addition to the property.
Member Ad~s d~clared that he could see no exceDtiona! circumstances
here - it is a small lot and so it is not big enough for ~ ~ ~cu3<~.
M~er Gregson remarked that as long as the applicant s~ayed %~ithin
his 40% ~overage~ the Commission should have-no alternative b%~t to ap-
prove th~ variance.
-29-
Me~'~er Guyer stated he had mixed emotions concerning this matter - he
could see the un~%s~.~al circumstances in that it is a small lot; however~
be dislikes se%~ing a !ct this size get so crow~e~.
Chairman ~/~tewart discussect the events leading to the development of
these lots, inclicating that since they are confo~ing to the 40% lot
coverage and obs~erving the side yard setbacks, it would not cause ~y
~!ndue hardship to the area to the east and therefore, he would be in-
clined to favor ?~.is request.
Cit]~ Atterney Lin~erg co~ented that from all previous remarks, it
seems as though this will be a split vote, and since a variance re-
q~.~ires the majority of the membership (4 votes) to pass, he suggested
a continuance of the matter until there is a full Co~unission~
~feaf~er Adams stated he was against this - that the Co~ission should
t~ action, and if the action does not suit the applicant, he has the
right of appeal.
Chelonian Stewart declared he would be in favor of a continuance~
asked the applicant for his opinion~
k~Js. Ec]ward Anderson asked whether ~e objections were directed towards
the variance its~!f or to the size of the addition~ Chai~an Stewart
e~plained it was toward the variance itself - they could see no unusual
cJ.~?cumstances pertaining to the lot that would~ justify granting the re-
,g.u~st. This was the co~ent made by two of the Co~issioners who felt
they could not favor the variance.
~Ofs~ ;u~{~erson stated tibet they bought this house not knowing the lot
was unc!ersized~ and no~ she feels they are being punished for something
they hact no~ing to do with~
ChaJ.~%~ Stewart e~q)la~ne{1 to Mrs~ ~derson the reasoning behind the
negative reaction of t%~o of the Co~issioners - that even though the
iot was smal!~ the hou~e that was built upon it was considered to be
quite large.
M3C {G~{yer-Gregson} Variance be approvect. Findings be as follows::
a. 9.~ha(~ the strict ap?iication of the zoning regulations or require-
m<~nts wculd result in particular difficulties or v. nnecessa~ hardships
inc%Tnsistent with the i~-eneral purpose ~nd intent of the regulations
'l'l~e observance of th~ 20' rear yard, setback would prohibit any
single sto~_7 expansion of the house~
b. Tiler there are exceptional ~i~c~;~?~'.~ce~ ~r conditions applicable
u~; ~ p~c%~'cy ~n~,o~v~.e o~ Uo th~ inte2qded uss or development of the
p~coperty that do no~ a~pty ~generally %o other property in
u20-
Lot width of only 81' is too shallow for expansion of existing
house. Lot was granted a variance from 7,000 square foot mini-
mum to 6,662 square feet on original subdivision.
c, 'l~hat the granting of a vari~u!ce will not be materially detrimental
to the public we~.fa~e er injurious to property or improvements in
suc-~ zone or nei~jhborhood in which the property is located.
Two {2) houses on corner have previously been granted zone
v~riances similar to the proposed request without any apparent
~etriment to the neighborhood.
~.. ?hat tl~e granting of ~, variance will not be contrary to the objec-
tiv~'s of the Gen¢.~ral Plan.
The General Plan will not be affected,,
93he motion carrie~ by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Members Guyer~ Gregson; Stewart and Adams
NOES: Mer~er Rice
ABSENT: ~embers York and Hy~e
Consideration of Pro?~_osal to.U__ni__fy Nam.,e of Bonita Street
Director of Planning Warren ncted the area under question; there is a
Bona. ts Street from First Avenue to a point 475' easterly on the north
l~alf of t~:e street and 667' easterly from First Avenue on the south
half. There is a Bonita Drive from }~illtop Drive to a point 358'
~estarly on the south half~ and a Bonita Road from Hilltop Drive east-
erly to the Sunn?fside &rea. The staff recor,~aends that this segment of
~:he street be unlfLed and a coim~on name be designated, for it; the
term "road" wcu!~ be the staff's suggestion siu. c,~ this is most commonly
used ~b. roughout +-his a~ea.
City Attorney Lindberg stat-ad t~at this doe:~.'n't need a public hearing:
it would be a ma~ter of' courtesy to the residents to hold a public
hearing~ however.
Memt,er ~uyer que:-:tiene6, what would happen to deeds~ etco if the name
is ~h<~nge~R. Cit'; Attorney Lindberg explained that deec]s are recoxds
which cc~ntain a ~ega! ~.escription of the property and a change of
str<'~et nal~e would have no effect on it. ~r. L: ndber? ad. dod t~at it
is the obligation% of tt~e City to unify ~his street ne~'~e so that there
woul,.i be no divi~zion o~' portions of street ha~ing different n~u.~es.
Member Q~uyer asked sbo~t the house numbers. Director Warren stat~e~
tha'~ ~l~.e staff wDu!d, rfcon~zend to the Division of Engineering theft
t3~ese numbers be chang~=d to correspond to the City system,
~('he Commission ac3ain discussed the matter con~:urring that they wou!([
not hold a public hearing~ since the Council will do soo
~-kqUC (Adams-Gr~gson) Recommend to the City Council that the n~e cf
the tho33oughfare of Bonita Road be uniform throughout the block anf.
be called Bonita Road,
Seco__n_d Hearin~_~_ New Z.on~i_n_~ Ordinance
Director Warren explained that there are some problems in setting up
a date for the next hearing of the new Zoning Ordinance in that
of the Commissioners will be away for the next t;.~o months. The
staff, ',
~.owever~ is recommending SeptemJ~er 25 as the next meeting date°
Cha~xman Stewar'~ felt this was a good date~ co~m~ent~ng that he will
be away for most of September and Member Gregson will be gone in Sep-
teinber.
~4r. Warren noted a letter the staff received from the San Diego BuiXd-~
ing Contractors' Asseciation and the Chs]i%ber of CoF~]erce, both
zaticns of which are studying the new proposed ordinance. He said
staff will notify them of the new meeting date, if it ?~.~_~ agreeable
v~lth the Con~AissiOno
~UC (Rice-Gregson) The second hearing on the proposed new Zoning
Ordinance to be set for Monday~ September 25, !967~ at 7:30 p,m.
~han_~ off Meeti_'%_~. Date - September 4 to Se~te~e__r__6
Director of Planning Warren stated that the next regular meeting date
falls on a holiday and the next working date would be Tuesday which is
a Council meeting° The staff, therefore, would recommend ~2~at the
meeting date be changed to Wedntsday.
~4SUC (Guyer-Ad~m~s) ~4eeting of September 4 be changed to September 6~
1967.
Attendance at F~eeting__s
Mr. Warren referred to a memo sent by the Chief Administrative Officer
concerning absenteeism of the members from the different ConmtissionSo
He asked that minutes of the meeting reflect the action taken in ex~
cusing a Member from being absent.
Member Gregson stated he will be away for two meetings in September~
and Chairman Stewart noted that he will be away for possibly 4 meetings,
starting in September.
MSUC (Guyer-Rice) Members Gregson and Stewart are hereby excused from
attendance for the Planning Comalission meetings in September (Gregson --
2 meetings and Stewart - 4 meetings.)
a22-
iaent .%taring ~,li,~, have set up ii meetln? of the ~)ri~p<~ir%,Z owners
' ~ '~ ~ '~- ,' ' the~ ~-~-,~,'~- they con~ider ?~,.a~n~ ~ ~ ~i~at
~l~ecto,. ~,qa~'ren a~d~d that a staff member ~1,~ attend ~nd if an~
the Co~,=0~ss~on~._~' ,~ ~ ~'~ -~,~r,.. ~', to attenc~ ~:hey ~hcu].d ~"" ' the ~h~ff a.Dd~ let
them know.
=n%~._~,~.d ~out the signs ~ '-~ Third 2%~enue~ ~;euth ~f
which :is in ~%e ~'~o ~ tv ' '
C. ounty~ a copy of whic~ ~;ent to ~e Co~T~s~ion~ discv, s~inc~' this
~,=m~. adding n~l~.a r,u..hlng new has developed out ~ere~ ~n<~ the
' pos.~.~ble ordinance ch~n~es~
is studying .... ~ ' ~ ~
i~.DJOU ~$~,IENT
M~qUC (Adams-G~egson} Meetin~ be adjou~'ned until the meeting of S~p
t.e~r~ber 6~ !967~ M~eting adjournef~ at 19:15
Respectfully s ~kmitted
//Jennie b~ Fula
~ Secretary