Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1967/08/07 ORIGINAL- MINUTES OF A RF, G~LAR ~EETiNG OF THE CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHDLA VISTA~ CALiFO~qNIA August 7, 1967 "i3he re{!'%i!ar meeting of the City Planning Commission was held at 7 on tile al}eve date in the Council. Chamber, CiTric Center~ 276 Guava ,~ven'ue v/Lth the following members present: Stewart, Gregson, Rice~ ~ .~r~ A,.~ ~ a~ Guyer~ Absent: (with previcus notification) Members ~n ~.~, Also ~resent: Director of Planning Warren~ Associate ~.~a~9~ ~%~-,~.~.~ Assistant ~.lan~ler Lee~ City Attorney Lindberg, aha Assis~, :ant Civ, v .~,nglne~.r Ges!ey~ ?~SUC {Ad<n~:~-Rice~ Minutes of the meeting of J~ily 17, 1967~ be :.:?~. Mo~i~ication of Ccndlclonal Use Pe~it - D. F~ Reeder 582-58~ U Street [9~6~ tLe Co~m:~ss~on and ~.ounc~! approw~d a requ.~,t for a ~e.~.~ for '~is p.~ope~.~ ,~ :~on~d R-3 - to continue to us~ an Ln~ ~up!~x for m~ica! or,ices. Sub~queDtly, ano~er r~qu~st was ~,~c 1~67 for pe~ission for a mi:<~d u~e for ~- .~upL~=~: -- s.~sid~ntiat and p:{ofessional, which the Commission denied~ ~.p?~_~an~ bus red,ted the other h~i~ of this duplex f tenants f~vering the requ~st were ~ '.'~- .:~r~ Pz~ul ~I1~,:% ......... resi~or~ 359 E STreet, declared tha~ if the appl~an '? ..... 9_a=~=~ it w~,~%~ ~d cause an 'c~ndue hardship on ~. tHr~ ;?eed-'~ the ~ ~" ...... "' 5or ~ne anr~ one-half '~' ~'~ ~=~.~ %o rent the other half of the duplex for :~ues, v, b~c~use he was not .-o.,.d he should be ~ ...... nt~ o.e~% aske~ the applicant if he ~.~'~s a~a~e i% %=ouid. be z~ ~dd,:~: ~n::~ ~ ml>~ecl use v~.s not a good one= ~nd asked ~he ap~L~.,:zm~ Dow ~c,o be ~_~ recu~)~ting that ~ls present mixea use continue? Mr. Reeder asked for one year, if possible, then if h~ fi. nd~ ~e cannel ~en% this apartment in that space of time~ he will con~e bac~ to the Commission. Ckaizman Stewart co~nented that it was an excellent location for ~ her's office~ especially with the hospital across the street~ and tha~ there shouldn't be any proklem in renting it out as such. City Attorney Lindberg questioned the applicant as to th~ terms of his present lease. ~;Df. Reeder claimed he did not have a le~e ~ the has been in this location for the past 5 or 6 years. ~nfoe~r Adams noted that this, too, was illegal. ~ir. Noel Gaseoigne, present resident of 584 F Street~ spoke Jn defens~ of tke request~ He said he was quite satisfied with the set-up; he has no problem living next to a doctor's office~ and no problem with parking. Director Warren explained the parking layout~ no~ing that '.~he garage %~as modified to permit the parking of two cars; it was assembled that it would be occupied by the employees. ~ember Adams discussed the mixed use and the fact that it mi~h'c set a precedent; however, he felt ~hat granting this for a period of one yeg~r would be a temporary use and would no% be setting a precadent~ On th~.t basis, he would agree to help these people. Chairman Stewart agreed, commenting that in one year's time~ the situ~- tion down there could change. Member Adams declared that, after the one year pariod~ %he applicant should come back to the Commission and present evidence of what he in the interim period to get the unit rented. MSUC {Rice-Gregs~n) Approval of the mixed use for a period of one yea?. A request was made to consider the rezoning of 446 Broadway at this time. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING -.446 Brqadwa~ - R-3 ~ C-2 - Pe~ B~s The application was read in which a request was made to rezone from to C-2 a portion of that property at 446 Broadway. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan~ noting the location~ adjacent land use and zoning. He stated that the app!~cants propose to construct a Pep Boys Store in this location. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. FJr. %.9.:~rtoR Krauses ).122 W.~ ~.~ashington Bo!.:i~-ivar{l, Los ~ngel. es, stated he was Vice-presi~ent of %ko corporation., and briefly discussed their ~>].ans fo~ ~1~ property. He sa~.d '~hey desire to come .~.nto Chula Vista~ ~.nd will buil~, a modern, attractive store. ~. K:~'aus~ then showed the Jemn~ssion some pictures of the latest s~ore in Los Angeles, no~.inq thah this building ~it]. be similar to ~at. He added that the balanc~ :}f tN~ property involved in the C-2 request will be used for future ~}~r.. Harry Ho].t~ 466 Broadway~ living adjacent to this area, stated he ~vas ccncsrned abc'~t th~ noise factor. ~Ir~ Kraus~ explained that %he store would be open only two nights a .3eek unt~l 9 o~c!ock and will be closed on Sundays. They will not be (~,oing genex~l ~arag~-t~e work~ but they do install mufflers~ tires, ~tc~ ~>his work is doric in an enclosed building~ and according to this 2articular sto~:e~s plans~ it will be situated on %he north side of the · .:uildi~:g. H~ :~o'~:~ that ~r. HQ1% lives south of the proposed buildin?~ :4r. I~okt asked if a stipulation could be made to restrict them frc~ ~.oi~:~-' a:']y of this work on the south side of ~ne build~ng. Chai~'man Stewa:ct ~plained that the zoning was C-2 an~ they %.~ere iegat!~ enti%le~l to do an~' typ~ of work pe~itted in that Director W~rren noted that there was no design control on any of the huitding~ en ~roa~3Nay~ and the staff did not recommend it for this ~.k; Kzause s%a%ed tha% they now ha-~e 135 stores, 46 of which are in CaAiferlia end 4 in Ssn Diego. Their newest store is on 67th and Cajon and ilere Choy a~e separa%ed from the residential sone by the wid%h of an alleF:. They h~.ve been the~a for nearly five years ~nd have h{~d no c~o~pleints ~rom any of the neighbors. U~e~ber ~y~r co~msen~e~ that this use ~ouid b~ no more object~on~bAe ~:~an a car wash ¥~hich is a permitted use in ~:his zone. Yb~re b?im~ ne f~l~tk~r co~en%~ either fo~; or ~gainst~ the h~arin~ was ~eclared c kose-l.~ Nex~ber Af~ss co~ente~ %hat this is the type of business ~e other p~'operty o~%~ers along Broadway %~ould like ~o see go in. Chairman St~vsa..:'~: noted that it was an unfortunate situation that there ~as a lack of d~pth along Broadway for this zoning. He discussed th~ ?asr zonings on B~'o~:dway noting that it ~as originally industrial~ ::'acentl.y upgraded to C-2. )irectcr Warren co:~:ente:~ that the plans would be subject to site plan ::'ev:[e~ by i:he staff. >~S~:C (Guyer~re%~son} Reco~u~en~ approval of the change of zone fron -4- Pindings be as follows: a. Sound zoning practice dictates that con~ercial zoning be of a usable depth. The 125' depth of co~erclal zoning in this block is not sufficient to develop most contemporary business establish- ments with today's parking and floor area requirements~ b. The blocks on either side of the block in which the subject prop- erty is located have commercial depths in excess of the 270' requested. c. The Coir~ission and Council have, in the past~ granted extension~ of the commercial zoning on Broadway in similar circumstances. SUBDIVISION - Tentative Map of Rancho Vista Estates Director of Planning Warren submitted the map noting the location as south of Telegraph Canyon Road and eest of the interstate 805 Freeway (proposed)° The total area of the subdivision involves 53 acres, 8 acres of which are reserved for freeway right-of-way. The total n~ber of lots is 140~ two of which are large land reservations containing approximately 13-1/2 acres adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road~ Mro Warren noted that as a result of this~ they have approximately 32 acres left which, when divided into 138 lots, will represent a density of approximately 4.4 lots per acre. He then noted the alignment of Oleander Avenue as proposed by the developer and that reco~aended by the staff which would intersect with Crest Drive. He cautioned the Commission about approving a map when they are not sure what Lots 139 and 140 will ultimately be used for~ Director Warren then reviewed and explained the conditions of approval recommended by the staff° Mro Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, submitted ~he reco~menda-. tions of the Engineering Division. Mr. Dennis Wittman~ Wit~aan Engineering, representing Vista Associates~ stated it is a very difficult piece of property to ~ork on. Referring to a revised map which he had brought, 5~. Wittman stated ~at they made several studies of the area, and it was the City's Engineering Division that got them started on this final design. He noted that Oleander will align with Crest Drive as recommended by the staff; that the staff pointed out they would need a 500' or radius because of the cul-de-sac coming off this street. They ended up with 420~ which was acceptable to the Engineering staff. As to Ossa Avenue~ the residents do not want the street to go through, and they do not want it either; therefore, there will be only two accesses to the subdivision: off Telegraph Canyon Road and off Naples. They also discussed this with F.H.A. and were told by them that they can see no reason for the street 'to go through. ~s to Lots 139~,_' -~ .~ -~ ~0~, ,,~',~n_y,~ are ~.ct prepared to answer that question o~ their propose~ usa at ~his time. The soil here is non-expansive ......... na they are currently working with th~ Port Authority of San .31~3o an.~ with t~e.u.[v~lonr~'"'~' of ~ighways~ both of whom are interested i.n the E~aterial ~,nd wi~h to utilize it in their projects. After this~ ~:bey c~n plan to usa the area ei%her for muitiple-f~ily or for ~ciai~ which z~ ~he ~ ~nlng across the street. ~'. Wittman discussed ~he ~evelopmen~ of multiple-housing at Grossmont Village which was done by tez~a~i~g the area~ snd co~ented %hat they are thinking of a pro- ject s~mi~,ar ~ ~.~ this Member }~ice asked if t~%e ~eveloper has any plans for putting in a e .~ac at the end of Ossa since it will r~ain a stub street. )lilacS. r Warren ho.et that this would be a requirement. ~ ..... m~,~..,lon dlsuussea the dr=.lnage problem. Mr GeSley - CO~h~ent,e ~ ~za~.~ _ r=~al~. -2hat there would be any in this area from Ossa uo the vacsnt prop~ri:y~ " W.~ t:~n:~n, noted it will be going in the ouhez direction; that it ~-.%~3 to the curbs,, D .r~.~ct .... W~rren re~.ter~.te~ that upon approval of the map the Com~nissicn .~.~t o~ approving the design that lea%es these two lots (139 and !40% and th~ staff can <)n]y assume that they will be coming up with a develo ~ment. Mr. Wi:~a~ noted the ':opo%xa~:hy in this area a~:d the elevations ,.}} preposed deve].opment~ He felt ~he ~.~ra.=.,~ .~.n~ would be s~c~.-t P~t~r ~,.e Presbyterian Church to the ~outh~ s~.a~ ~,v~ r,o oD3ect~on ~o unzs development b%~t are concer'aed about ~372f~}3].e~i~ of the bank ~to the east of Oleander; the land, through ro of t~J,~.~.,~ ~ ~' ~ ~,.ua~..cn wheKeb~, the water flows ~own tc It cculd be a serious ~¢ituation~ but they are confident that so~ething co.%J~ be done .~ko~. ~z~',~, ~'. ..... ah~ would like soma assurance from .~..s, ln~,~., will taken ~e .~ r ~ Their seconc} :~once~?; is ~)., relation to the cul-de-sac -- it .... ul= be to tr, e~ 7enrage '%0 have an o]?eDing of this street to th~:ir property; ho%ever~ they w~.!~ not push t~s ma,_L~r~ They feel they can c~3nslc~er th~s City At~crney ......... !'~{ndb~:~--~ reviet~ed the Ci'ty~s drainage ordiDance. ~-'"' ~ ~'~ tha't the drainage woui~ go off Oleander an~ not ]4r, ~.t. a~uo declared ~u~cn ~:~roperty~ As to making the cul-de-sac on the clutch ~rcperty, they feel they would rather pull it bac~ on the!z own sub- ~SQC (Ad~u~.s-Guyer) Reco~mead approval of the tentative map subject to the following conditions: 1o Access rights for Lots 139 and 140 shall be granted to the City until such time as plans for the development of these lots may be approved by ~,/~e Planning Commission. Prior to the submission of a final map, a grading plan for the total subdivision shall be submitted for staff review. 3. The configuration of lots at the end of Court "F~ shall be rede- signed with a goal of developing a minimum, lot frontage of 40' for all lots~ 4 o Oleander Avenue shall be dedicated 60 feet in width. 5. The northerly portion of Oleander Avenue shall be shifted westerly so ths. t the c~nterline meets that of Crest Drive. 6o The minimum~ centeriine radius on Oleander shall be 500 feet° Drainag~e structures shall be constructed across Telegraph Canyon Road. 8~ One third, of the street improvements on Telegraph Canyon Road be constructed concurrent wi~h the improvements for Unit 1, one third constr'~acted with Unit 2, and the remainder with Unit 3. 9. The typical sections shall be revised to require a minim%Lm of 3" of A~Co on Telegraph Canyon Roa~ and 2" of AoC. on tile interior stree?.So Twenty.-ei~3ht feet ~28'} of roadway shall be constructed by the veloper on Telegraph Canyon Road and ths~. tree planting ease~ent shall be 7 fe,~t. E Avenue shall terminate in a standard cul--de-sac. Subject cul- de-sac may be const~.~t~c'hed either within the subdivision or on the adjacent property to the south. D Court and F Co~r% shall be revised to terminate in a cul-de-sac approved by the Ci~ry Engineer° }~inat ~r,ap and improvement plan checking fees shall be paid in ac~ cordance ~,~,ith Or~t. inance No. 1.001. The =3outherly boun~'~ary of Oleander shall be revised in accordance with Record ~iap 14. The sewer in F Court shall be revised subject 'to the approval of the City Engineer~ due to the short horizontal radius~ 3.!%. ?he sif~ewalk transi~ion from a planting area to monolithic in ~ve.~u,~ and Oleander Avenue shall be subject to the approval of City Engineer° 16o A ~ethod of elis~inating the stub street of Ossa Street be made which shall b~ ~,proved by the Division of Engineering. ......... E,.~t-I!~,: ...... R-1 to R-3 and Chan_~e in .,r~,~OI~Z,~ 81 ~'hird Avenue Se~;a~< ~ t~5~ Su~Qect Lot and Lot at Di<ect>r of Planni?zg Warr%~n noted this was Com~r~ission-initiated at the :ce~ues~ of the s'~aff. ~l:his c~Re about as a result of the rezoning of ~:he prc~l~&rty to 'the ~.orth. I% concerns a proposed rezoning from R-1 to il-3 an:~. a setback rac~uct:~on for two parcels of !and -- one of which is !ocate:~. on th~ nore.hc~ast corner of Third Avanue and "D'~ Street (zonecl ~-3} ~a~.i~ the other &:,uts this corner lot on the norEh and is zoned )~-1 ..- :c~oth pa:<'cels h&ve 25: setbacks on Third Avenue. The considerat~on~ the~'efc~:e, is for R-3 zoning for the R-1 zoned lot and a reduction in :~rcnt ~;etback to 15: for both lots. Di~:ector Warren s~mitted a plot )71.an nc,'ting 't',]<~ loca~::i:~n of the propose~f[ zon<~ change and setback change~ ~3h~s b ~f.ng ttle tim~ ~nS place as advertlmed~ the public hearing was ~ps:ned ~ ~r~ Vi:~'$~il Lind. s~y~ 271 Elm Avenue, own~r of the lot on the corner~ '~tat,¢~d th.~t he approved of the 15' setback. '?here %~ein~ no further com:~ent, eithe:c for or against~ the hearth%; was ~e~<~r ~.ams state~ he was in favor of the chan~e; it would make it contig¢c~ous with Eha ]~-.3 zoning of Frederica Manor~ and the setback wou~d ~e b~:ought up ~:o a more realistic figure,~ I,~r. Ad~s sugges~d 'abe "B'~ ~one be cttached so the density can be controlled~ Directc,r Warren explained the staff's feelings in the matter. Ee sta'tcd 'they weze at & loss as tD recon~en~, any specific denL~ity for this ~a:~cak. It may be t;hat at the ti~ the Co~ission completes · Lhei:~ ~'{~u~y of the sonin~ ordinance tha'[: a final zoning will be placed ~2pon t~e propert. Tf at that }~mJ)~{~< A6.<us su~esEc, d a B-2 ~ensity be attached. Director Warren ~nt~d that the corn;,.~r lot has no density cont,'o! on itt so the staff hes~itaLed %o recc~xle~d any density limitation on thi:~; parcel. ,L~h~ Cc~a~ission ~iscussad this mat%er aa?t co~:~curred that attaching ':D" ~cz:<~ %o the ~.roper~y '~ould assurs control ox'er any future de:ve!o~ ;~SUC (Guyer-Gregson) Rec~:Jmntend approv&l of the change of zone fyo~ :a-! tc ~{--3--D for pro?erty at 8k Third 2~.venue~ sr~d that the setb<:ck c~duced to ].5' fc~r both this p!:operty and the lo% at the northe~s'c >Qrner of ~Third ~.¥en~e and. "D' Street. ?.inclines be as fc!lo~;s: ass~Ire fu'ture d~velopmen% to be compatible ~;Ith that %o the north which h~$ d. ensity and d~i$'n control. :b. ~:che zoning a~.d s~tSacks established wi!Z now be compatible ad. jacent procartJ, es ~d is good zoning practice to make this chancre. '?UBLTC HE~q/~iNG ,Con. d) v.~}~.~ANC~5 - Atlantic Richfield Company - South- west Corner B_onl'ca______a.nd Or. ay Lakes Roads - S~g.n~ Director of Planning Warren stated that this hearing was continued from the meeting of July 6~ 1967, for further study. The Co~ission directed ~,he staff to meet with the applicant in an attempt to reach a compro- mise on the numDer of signs actually needed. Mr. Warren declared ~at such a meeting was held and the following signs were agreed u~n: k pole ,~z, gn (86 sq. ft.) - 20' high ~ - pole sign (15 sq. ft.) .~ - building Ea~le (12 sq. ft.) .. - building "Richfield" (15 sq. ft.) ~. - building ':Richfield" (5.5 sq. ft.) Xf 9'ran%ed~ this would give them a total of 134 square feet. Since they ~%re in the "D" zone, ~hey are limited to 50 square feet of sign area. I~mber Ric~ asked what the reco;~%~ended zoning was ~n the General Plan for this area. Director Warren noted that it was high density resi- dentiai category~ howev~r~ the City rezoned it for co~eroial. ~.h~ being th~ time ~%d r~lace as a~vertised~ the public hearing was reopened ~ l~r. T~d Crone, representing the Atlantic Richfield Company, stated he ~,~greed w~.t~ the statements made by th~ Planning Director. ?here beAn~' no further co~ents~ either for or ~galnst, the hear.%~.~ decl~ red c~ose~ ~ I~e~3oer Guyer ~omm~n~ed that he can see nothing wrong with grantin~ the J~34 square feet of sign ~e~w~ber G~_,c~on declare~ that he could ~ee no reason for the sign on ..,L~; west wz.ll of the builulng~ Me,er Ad,as agreed~ adding that Cc~z~ission is trying %~o c~lt down on the sign area and this particular ~ign is superfluous. ~.. Crcne noted that tn=y %~ere referring to ~he 15 square foot, 10' nlgn a~m g~ta~e~ that they feel it is necessary for l~en~lf~catmon since they are changing the arch~.ecture of the build, lng - a rustic t~pe building -~ and people may find it a little difficult to identify it~ He added it will be the s~e 'type of building as their other service station c~n Broadway an~ ;~en~:ber ~,uye~_ ?~)t the ~=~gn was not excessive; he commented that th~ ChevroD~t~tio.,.' " n in this area has more than 10O square feet of sign area. ?~r, Frank ' -' ~err~;1,,.a~ 3715 P%ltter Drive, Bonita, pointed out that the ;~tate Highway Department has estimated the traffic count for the road a~ 45,000 cars per day. %he Co~:%u!sslon d~sc'c~sseft ~:he C-~.-£ zoning on the property and re~iewe~ co,~m~nte~ that this was a compromi~e ~each~! at their m%:eting~ and he is not sure the staff agrees wi-~h it entire y, ....=u~e~ mc~_~'"~" tna~ ~' i~he signs~ as ~ubmltted~ ' by the staff, be ap- l~.zo~d .... Th~ motJ. o:~ died for !ack of a second. ~'.5:C {A,da~s-.Gregson] Si{{ns be approved as submitted by the staff ~ith %he ex{ e~tion of the 15 :~quare foot sign on the west side of the build- ing~ ~),~ the froR.% setbacks be ?educed. as requested for the erec'~:ion of ~ Theft the strict aD~3tication of the zoning regulations or :~eq~ire- '~.~'~_~ ~ ~or~ld result iD particular difficulties or unnecessary har4ships ~" ~ ~he 9enerai purpose an~ ~n=ent of the regutatio~'m~, O~. :~.~2 v~riance~ of astml. Ia.: natuze have preFtous~y been app:Tcved in t~e reco'~r ~¥~on ~et a s~rict ~pp!ication o'f the 50 square z~%,~ ~here ,:~r{~ e~.~..~),..tcn~k circumstances or co,~dlt!ons appil,:able ~.o c,ls pzoperty in, dj. Yeti ;~r to Che lntende~ use ~r ~evelop)~ent o:.~ the ic~ o~.. ~ .~ that de :~c~t a ~:)::.~ generally to other property in the same ~one o~~ neighborhood, T~t~ setbacks ~,~ propoged are primarily to keep ~..h~.. b~liiding fromm the front prope:c-ty line to as~ure proper vision and tra?fic s~,Zety - the s.gns as propose~ wou.].t~ not violate : ' criter~on~ zone have prev'~%o~s!y been granted c~ .~. ~t the g~.~. ~...n.g of a variance will not be ,.aaaerially ~etrimental ~ = .... ' injurious to property or improve~nts i:~ auch ~one oc ~ ...... gnb~.,l~,~..e in which tile property is located. ,~ ~ ~"s in the ~, .~ ~._~ _~.~.~..~.} ~. ~.e,~h~,~.,,~ co~5~ercla~, areas ha~e been ~' '._ s'~ch ~ ..... a~'~d v~,~.i.te the o..~.u~:'~ area would be substantiall; .,)~e ~e:m:xts, it is considerably ~.~..,_9~ than ~hhe ~O~' ~ _ ..... ~o ..... ~: of stations th.?ougnout the City~ '~ a no,. contrary ~to the ; ?b>k the ~,~d~.~.n9 '~ '~ be ':~}::.:~ sign recuic'emen'c:s aze co~pa'aibl.$ wit.'b o~hers located ~..-. - :~::c~ the go~ts of the General Plan,. ~,n~ City and woul~ nave n~ ( ....... ct cn -~0~- The variance was grante~4 subject to the folio%,,~in,~' signs: One -pole sign (86 square feet) ~ 20~ high. One - price ~:ign (15 square feet) One - building Eagle (12 square feet) One -. building "~Richfield" (5.5 square feet) motion passe,~ by the following vote, to-wit: 2~.YES ~ ~4~bers kd.~s ~ Gregson~ Stewart, and Rice ~OES: Member Guyer ~SENT: Mem~bers Hy~e and York ~he Cb~in~an remind, ed %he applicant of his right to appeal this ~ecision. ~UBLIC HEA?,ING -- V]~RIAI'~CE - 121 E. Queen Ann Drive - Ronald & U~he~' ,- Re %lest for 6' ~H_--~ Fence - Front Yard S~tback ~he ap~?lication '~-?as read. in which a request was made for the inc~Tease ~n 'the height of a fen(-~e from 3-1/2 ' ~'o 6' ~ E~irector of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location cf the proposed fence° He noted the property slopes 10' to ].2~ ~:c, the ~roi_~erty iiae. Upon reviewing the actual location of the proposed fence, Mr~ Warren noted that the applicant plans to const~3act it in back cf the sidewa!k~ and the public notice specified the location ss 2 Irom the property.' 2ine on ~heresa Way which would p~t the fence i~art ~own the si,ope. '.~he sketch that was i~ubmitted with the applicat%on was J,n error and was 5~.sinte?preted by the staff. Chair_~an Stewa,' ~'~ a~k~Id the applice~qt if he intended to build out ~:o the sidewalk. ~r~ Re, held Usher~ the applicant,, stated that was ~.~is ~.r_tent~ E~irect(>r Wa.oran ~eclared the ~atter would have to be re-advertis~d &sked for a cont~n%~ance~ City Attorney I,i:,%dberg asked the Commission to file this action. He added that the Cor~u-~.issLon could go ahead~ and deny it and let it ge on %o Councii~ but ke ~'ou2~ s~ggest that they simply file the action~ and ~eadvertise the ~atter, 5'~UC (Rice-Gr~gsc~n] Act.4on be filed ~ the matter readverti~ed for the next meeting. PUBLIC HEAPJ[NG - CONDITIONAL USE PERI,~iT 435 "H" Street - Chula Vista %G_rou~__P__rc._~p_e__rt~_e.~_.- Rec~uest f~'~-~k-~t-~on to Hosp-~ in R-3 Zone The application was read in which a request was made for permission to construct an addition to the existing hospital, adding 102 beds plus miscellaneous other departments and facilities necessaz7 to the hospital. The aL-plicant asked for 15 months to consummate the application. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting ~e location, adjacent zoning and land use. He stated that the applicants are talk- ing ~ou'h a 5 story addition which is the s~ject of a variance re- guest on ~l~e agenda~ He noted that there will be an access off Fourth A%~enue which will be one-way entrance with diagonal parking. ~. Warren discussed the parking layout noting that ~ey are proposing more spaces than requi~.ed by ordinance~ He then referred to a letter from Mr. Derek Price, Executive Director of Hospital and Health Facilities of San Diego Co'~Ity, a copy of which was sent to the Co~ission, in which he expressed ~he ~e,~l=a~_~.l.~y of a merger with the Co--unity Hospital so that it would provide better service to the co~unity. While the staff su~gpcrts the need for a merger~ there is little alternative but tc go ~es~. ~,~ith this request~ MI~ Warren taen reviewed t~e recommendations proposed by the staff~ This Doing the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opene~. ~ w~. Wagstaff~ representing ~e hospital, stated they had no objection ~,o any of the cond!tlons~ He discusse~ the neec~ for the addition and state~ ~e building would enhance the area. There being no funther coFu~ent, either for or against, the hearln~2 was declared ~4e~er Gre~'son wanted to know why the merger could not be arranged. Chairman Stewart felt this ~as not a matter that concerned the use - there is nothi~g in the zoning ordinance that woul(7, give the Co~ission a basis fcr questioning the merits of a consolidation. City Attor?.ey Lin(lberg stated this was true ~ the Co~ission has to ex- an-ine this i~dependently of the question of a possible merger. The only concern he ~<~uLd have is holding cpen this conditional use permit fcr the period of time requested - 15 months~ Although it is reason~le~ i% may also .~%ave a ~3reat effect upon the merger and the development and p3ans of ~e Co~hmunity Hospital as well~ Mr. LIndberg added that the requ~st for time is based on the minimal explanation of the proposed e~pansion cf the facility~ It holds the door open to obstacles affect- J.~q the merger. Cb aide. an ~.e~,~aru felt that the prcgram outlined would certainly take mcre th~n ~ months or a year~ Member Gregson remarked that not eno~agh tame was spent on the matter of the merger. He added that the City can get better service from one large hospital. The Commission again discussed the subject of the merger; Member Adams stated tha't the Commission cannot take this into consideration but should operate only under those provisions required by the ordinance. City Attorn~y Lindberg affirmed this and added that the approval of the conditional use permit should in no way indicate that this Commission is lending its weight to the desirability of this program against any other program that can be offered. The Commission discussed the time period requested and concurred that the 15 months w~s a reasonable length of time~ F~C (Rice-Guyer) Conditional use permit be granted for the period of 15 ~nths as requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Final plans be submitted to the Planning staff showing: a. Detailed landscaping plans including an irrigation system. b. Parking areas relocated per staff approval and similar to the plan revised by the staff (as shown ,~t the meeting). c. Location for incinerator and enclosed trash area. d~ 265 parking spaces. 2o The parkway area on Fourth Avenue shall be filled with concrete. 3,, Any additional signs shall require staff approval° Findings be as follows: ao That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general wellbeing of the neighborhood or the community° This is an expansion of an existing facility which is providing service to the community at the present time. bo That such use will not, ~der the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health~ safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vic~ity, or injurious to property or improve- ments in the vicinity. The gro-~unds will be well landscaped with no smoke or odors. This use is already being conducted on the property with no apparent detrin~ent to the area in which it is located. c, That the proi3osed use will co~npiy with the regulations and ccn~i- tions specified in the Ccde for such use. Pre~ently~ opesatin,9 a 52.-bed hospital, this would allow for a larger and more modern up-to--date facility° d~ That ~he granting of this conditional use will not adversely affect the Ge~-~3:a! Plan of. the City of Chula Vista or the adopted plan ef any ,~overnn ~nta! agency. The General P3. an calls for such a facility at this location. T3~e ~,otion passed by the following vote:, to-wit: AVES~: Me.n%bers 5ice~, Cuyer~ ~dams and Stewart NC, ES: Member Gregson k3$ENT~ Members Y')Z'~I~ and Hyde PUf3L.[C .-~EARING ~ CONDITIONBDL USE PERMIT 491 "C~' Street - Hazarf' ~roducts, inc~ Request for W~rehouse ~i~['-~l~i'2 Zone The application wg~s read in %~hich a r~quest was ma(Te for pez~issJon to construct an office/warehouse with outFide storage cf building m~terJ.-- als. Director of Planning %4arren subr(itted a plot plan noting the adjacenh lanai use and zoni~g~ He explained ~hat tke use w~s pe~itte~ i~% this zone with a conditional, use pe~f.t if the storage involv(s 1~}~000 square feet or less. The parcel measures 400~ x 220~ pa~:(el of !~.nd o~ the nor~h side of '~C:' Street~ - approximately 180= east (f Fifth A~'enue~ The property is zo~.~ed C-2 for ,~1 depth of 200~ &~%d M-I ffz the rer,~,ain~.ng northerly 200 ' The applicant also owns the adjacent p~operty whick he is requesting permission ~o develop for a similar use at some later time. Mr: Warren e~Kplaired their' propo~';ed parking and landscaping pi~ans, He remaiked that he consulted with the Traffic Engineer and it was detez~inef 'chat the utt~mate width of "C" Street will ~e 48' curb to curb with Jts ex- isting 80~ right~-c.[-way. This leaves t0~ feet f[~on the side~alk tc the p~-ol~ert%' line for landscaping. D.trectc~; Warren t]~en ~?ead the reconu~endations offered, by the sta~ f for approve]., and the zec~,mmendations of ~'~e Division of Engineering~ This being the tinge a~.d place as adverti~edg the public hearing % as ~:o Rob ~t Pickering~ Ge~$,eral Manager of Hazard Products, Inc., ques- tioned :.~e reco~men~a~ion of the Engineering Division as to the a~ount o~ fill1 they would ha~e to put in befo~e ~y construction begins~ Di- cectoz ~rren e~p~t:kne~] that the condition stipulating that construction sho~,~i~ ]~e one foot ~ove ~he 100-yee. r flood level ~as for buildings in- · tende~, ~cr hu~:~ ha~itatio~. Since they are not havi~g residenti,~l use in this area, the conf. i'hio~, does not apply to them. ~r~ Pich~r~,ng asked akout his request for deferral of public impruve- ment~. Director of l~]anning %~arren read the report from the Divis~.on of E~gineering whereby they reco~mend 6~eferra! for the portion of land not bei~? uti!ize(~ by the proposed use. City At'~tcr~'~ey Lindberg suggested the matter of the ~ond, or lien be left up to him to work ouh ,with the applicant, Mr~ Gesley re~nde~ the applicant that he will be constructing in a flood ptain zone and therefore, his pl%~ns must also be processed throug~ the DivisiD:-~ of Engineering. There b,~ing no further co.au~ent~, either for or against, ~e hearing was d. ecl~.re,% closed, 'i'he Cor,k~dssion disz%lsse~ ~;he proposed use anCJ. the request for def~ri'al of the f. mprcvemenhs~ Director Warren ~.oted on the plot plan the area i~volved, in the req~teat fcr the deferral., MSUC (G~yer.-Gregs~)~ ~.pprov¢~! of conditional use pe~it subject t~ the fo!lewi~g co~%dihions: A d~tailed pla~ shall be s~mitted to the staff prior to the .[s~suance of ~¢ny buildi]~g pe~cnit shc~ing: a. The ax'e~ b~'~%~sen the property ii~e a~d t!]e sidewalk lar~sca]~ed %~'itl] a minimu~;~ of three street t~ees~ ground cover, ap, d s:~H~c3'~s~ b. A~.rcbitectu~3~l rende3~:ings or elevatio~s s~owing material aad 1 colors of t~e p~coposed bui!din~i alo~%g with all proposed si~s~ 2. The area on tb~ p3o~ marked "Renta!s'~ shall be screened with a so!~.d', fence o~u wall f~'om the street on the west and south side~'~. 3~ Although the gr.~nti~g of this pe~.t will include the entirs ~ite~ an%~ ~urther exp,~nsion from the spe¢~ific plot plan app~-oved (220~ x 4{~C~} shall requJ;¢e staff approvals.. A m~.nim'~;m of elevel% (Ii) pa~'king spaces shall be provided, but furuher detai!s~ d~rawings shall be s~2~mitted to the steff to ]eker~-~ min~ if additio~'~al pack},ng can be supplied. 5. C~neral require~e,~ts in this area of building should be: ac Any bui]ding~ for human habitation should be constructed one foot above the 100-year floo~ level. bo Any floatable material should be confined to a warehouse area. c. Buildings to be constructed shall be able to withstand inunda- tion by water and ~Felocities expected in the area. FindiDgs be as follows: a. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the ~neral wellbeing of the neighborhood or the community. Other similar uses are located directly west of this property and a building products yard will blend in directly with the M-1 zoning to the north. b. That ~uch use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case~ be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or p~ovements in ~le vicinity. There are no detri~nental aspects applying to this business. c. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and condi- tions specified in the Code for such use. The plans as ~ubmitted and the conditions imposed would result in the c!~mpli~ce of all appiicabl~ Code regulations. d. ~hat the ~ranting cf this conditional use will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista or the adopted plan of any g.~vernmental agency° The proposal is in subst~ntia! conformance with tile General Plan. MSUC (Guyer-Gregson) Approval of the deferral of public improvements a portion of prop~rty located at 491 "C" Street~ subject to the cash bond~ surety bond or a lien upon the property is posted in the amount of $16,000. Aside from the frontage upon which ~%e sales yard is to be located, the improvement shall be deferred until the deve!op~nt of remainder of the prope~%y takes place or the City deterlnines the need for s~reet impr~ve~ents. This deferral on "C" street amounts to 180' east ~f Fifth A~enue and 748" on the east side of Fifth Avenue norgh "C" Street. -16- PUBLIC HEARING - ~RIANCE - 435 ~H" Street - Chula vista Group Properties --~e_~est ~o~ Increase in Perm~'te~[fn~ H~_~ht in R-3 Zone The application was read in which a request was made for permission to increase the height of a proposed addition to the Bay General Hospital from 3 stories (45 feet) to 5 stories. Director of Planning Warren submitted the plot plan, noting the pro- posed ~.ocation. He noted this w~s the conditional use permit just ap- proved by the Commission. He reviewed ~%e limitations of the ordinance which allows 3 stories. Mr. Warren noted the location of the proposed addition as 82' from the east property line~ 120' from the west prop- erty line; 215~ from the north property line; 15~' from H Street. Mr. Warren stated that the staff recommends approval in accordance with the findin~s s~Lbmitted. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened~ There being no comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared c!osed~ The Co]muission discussed the request and agreed that the height of the building would allow for better setbacks and landscaped parking areas. The Co~m~ission noted that the landscaping ~xd design plans can be ap- proved by the staff. MSC (Adam~-Guyer) gariance be approved subject to the following condi~- tion; 1. Final plans to be approved by the staff. Findings be as follows: a. That the strict application of the zoning regulations or requirements would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships in- consistent with the general purpose ~d inte~%t of the regulations. Lin~ting the height to three stories would eliminate much of the open space proposed. The increase in height allows for better setbacks and landscaped parking areas. b~ That t~ere are exceptional circumstances or conditions applical]le to the property involved or to the intended use or development of the proper~y that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone or neighborhood. -17- The General Plan calls for high rise buildings in this area but at the present time, there is no provision within our. ordinance to allow for high rise. The variance application is the only method of accomplishing high rise buildings with adequate open space. c. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious %o property o~' improvements in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located° The buildings will be set back~ and ~ae ground landscaped with no danger from smoke or unpleasant odor° do That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objec- tives of the General Plan. The General Plan identifies a hospital nn this site and shows expansion from the original area~ The raotion passed by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Mermbers Adams, Guyer~ Stewart~ and Rice NOES: Member Gregson ABSENT: Members Hyde and York PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Northwest Corner of Bonita a~i~ Mesa ~oa---~ - ~_9_n~ - Request for service station in-~----~-DZone The application was read in which a request was ma~e for pe~ission to construct ~d operate a service station on ~e above property. Director of Planning Warren s~mitted a plot plan noting the lo~ation~ a~jacent l~d use, zoning, and the proposed Interstate 805. The prop- erty is zoned C-1-D ~d is desi~ated as Visitor-Commercial on the Gen,~ eral Plan. Next on ~e agen,~a is a request to reduce the setbacks an~ increase the area of signs. Director Warren also noted ~at the appli- cant is requesting ~at the pe~it be extended beyond the six month period allowed by ordinance to such time as ~e Inl~d F~eway is com- pleted at ~is Bonita Road inter~ange. Me~er Gregson asked if ~e align~nt of the freeway was n~ fi~ Mr. Warren in~cated it was, based on his ~iscussions with the State Di- vision of Highways. City Attorney Lindberg stated ~at the Co~ssion can m~e the ass%~p- tion ~at ~ere will be no significant changes in the area to cause a re-e~nation of ~..s~ problem. They c~n, however, put ~y reason- ~le time ii,ration on the application~ if ~ey so desire. T,.~i~J .... i.J. ln~2'' ~:he tJ.u~e and ~? ~,~.~e as ~dver%L;ed, the public hea~ing ..... e,.~.~, Mor~ ~ t'~esentin( Humble Oil C~mo~nv, s,~,.ted they of .... z.,. cc,.or sh~qe shingles recomn~ended by .h. s~a~:'cj ~ey fee] ~" t~A~s~ 5i,~itit:ior~ ~.~ th y pJ~]~~o~ ~%nci~i.~ - · station ~.'~ ..... uc~t~on ~.ith .o~,~..~ot.~O :ha*: the Commission :set a Lime ~imitat~on ~hero ~D:=~.~g no further co~,~ment~ either for Oc against,, the ~l .... ~,,~ ~.wa felt t~e Co~nission slou!dn't -~,'~'" ~omp~etlon of '<he freeway - it should be set on a limited 'L~s~o ,';: thm~e year~ and then have the s~alf or C .~=....un review i-';. at Cit5 ACtozn~y Lindb~irg agi:e:!d, adding ghat there was no reason wky fiw~ .Te~rs~ wi%ich is probably when the f~cee?~'~y w...~] be completed. -- D[re~to~:* ~vren r)iscu~s:~:~ the roof materLal,. He remarked 'that . ~_e.~c~,~en~s the darker ~ uited s~,'~.~.~''~v a res..~c~' '~ ~.A~lal* ' developi¢.ont. Mr. ;ga~on noted ~hat .... th~ :?tat/on acrcss, the street will have imitation ~h~ke o~ l:wo vears~ if upon oxt)i!'ation,, more %line is ....... ~ ': .... ~ ...... s~jec'c %o the following .~zr=~:sc=plng plans shall bo submitt~%d to the ~,lanning Directoz 3, S~h:* :roofing material sh~l! be of a medium c'c da~k color~ itaLia':ion shake ~r shak~ ; ~ ~ ' ' ' The ~zash enctosu~:e shall be large enou~ to enclose a dumpster used by ~.n~ trash collection se~*ice. 5. Ail sales shall be !imii:e~d to those nolnnally considered incidental to service station needs and confined within the building or be- neath the canopied areas. In no case shall tires and other items for sale be stored or ¢tisplayed outside this area° Flags, penn.ts, whlrligigs, or other attention-getting contrivances shah! be specifically excluded from use at this station. Findings bi3 as follows: a. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desiraJaLe to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood or the coF~aunity. Tb~ proposed use will offer a desirable service to the community and the freeway traveler at this location~ b: That s~.lch use will not~ under the circumstances of the particular ca~se~ be d~trimenta! to ghe bealth~ safety o~c~ general welfare of ~ersons residi~19 o:r working in the vicinity~ or injurious to property or improve- ~nents ill the vicini'i&yo The dez:ign of the station and 'the unusually large amount of l~nd- scaping proposed ~s such that no dangler to gte welfare of persons re~;;~.d, ing in the area is evident. c, Th,~t the proposed use will colnp!y with the reg'ulations and coadi- tions specified in the Code for such use. Th,~ proposed use wi.~l comply with the regulations, and the dihions imposed would result in t~e compliance of all applica'o~e c, ?hat the granting of this conditional use will not adv~rsely affect the General Plan of the City of Chu!a Vista or the adopted plan of any govez~n ~n t ~1 agency. The General Plan designates this area as Visitor-Com~e~cial~ and · I:h~ sul~ject use is', compatible with that designahion~ P~JBI, IC ~{EARING - VARIi~I~CE ,-. Northwest Co~?ner of bonita and Bonita ~lesa '~'~--~'~ ~"'/-- ~i~ ~~--1 ~_-i'-~"g Company ~d Setback Re The application was read in which a request was made for an in the height tir~itation~ a reduction in setbacks, and increase Jn the sign area requir~en%s for the proposed se~gice station. Director of Planning Warren sub~tted a plot plan noting the location and delineated the applicant's proposals as follows: a. One 48 square foot identification sign 20' high located 5' from the front property line. One 168 square foot ~dular identification sign in the rear of the property 50' high° c. One 15 square foot freestanding price sign located 3' from the front property line. One 15 square foot slogan sign located on the face of the building~ e. One 20 square foot identification sign located on the face of the building. f. The intrusion of 'the canopy an additional 1' into the front setback. Mr. Warren pointed out that the property is in a "D~' zone which limits the sign srea to 5C square feet° The staff, however, recommends appro- the requ_s~ w~th ~%e exception of the 168 square ~oot modular sign. Such s~gns are designed chiefly to serve ~3ae freeway and the staff feels it should be considered only when the freeway is completed. This bein9 ~the time an~ place as advertised, the public hearing ~as opened. Mr. Sherwood Morf~ representing Humble Oil Company, stated they tried their best to live within the City's requirements. They have reduced their original requested sign area by a substantial amount° Refer- ring to the modular si~n~ Mr. Mc. rf remarked that the elevation of the freeway will be 21' above the elevation of the proposed service station, and without this modular sign, the station would not be visible from the freeway. He agreed there was no i~mediate need for this sign appro.~ vel until the freeway is com~!eted; however, he wanted the Co~is~ion to realize the necessity of the sign from the freeway in order to at- tract the tourist trade. He asked that the sign be approved subject to the completion of the freeway° There being no further comment, either for or against~ the hearing was declared closed~ Member Rice felt a h~i?ht J.i~tation of 30~ instead of 50' would be more realistic, ~nd ~%e sign doe~ not have to be 168 square fee~ - ~erhaps 50 square feet woul~ be adequat~ especially wi~% the ~NCO wor~- Member Adams declared that until t/ae freeway is actually there~ there is no need for 'the modular sign; the sign can be considered at that time~ -21- ~.~:3u ,.-~,~,~.,. R_ce) Var~an<~e be a~,pro'ved for ~ ject to the following Appr3val of this request e.xcluSes ~-'~ ....... ~ ' s~ n ~ ~ng~, to considered in ~h~, varJ.{~nce request). 4 ~ h~ash enclosure shai2 b~ larg'a ~' ' "- ~ '' 5. ~ .'" ~ sales shall be limited to th~.~ normally cons3, dere~' ~ i. ncid~n~ai ne~, a~ll confined within ~he building 0%' for sale ~e stored or displayed outside ?}w~ <~ 6. ~%ags, pennants, wh-~.%~%~9.,~ or other at%entlon-~gettlng contri~ v~ces shall be especifically excluded from use at this Pindings be as follows: a. That ~he proposed use at the particular location is necessa~ desir~;ble to provide a so.Pi, ce or fac...~lty which wil. 1 ~ -~'-" "~ general well-being of the neighborhood or the community~ The propose~ ~]se will of.~er a desir~le service t~ 'the and the freeway traveler at this location. b. That such use will not~ under ~e circu~rstances of the ps~?ticu!a:~: case, be ~etrimentai to the heal~, safety or gener~t welfare of residing or working in ~e vicinity, or injurious toprocraft'. ~_ .y er prove~nts in ~'~e vicinity. The design of the station and ~e unusually large amoun'~ of land- scaping proposed is such ~}at no danger to uh,. ,,~elfa~e of per,? residing in ~he area is evldent. proposed use will comply with the reg~i!,~tions sl.~cifJ.~d, in the Co~.!e for such i~yo:~< ~ would result in the compliance of all Plan of the Cit~* of Chu].a Vista or the ac'.c3[~t.nf{ pia,c Gener{~l Plan ~es[.gne~tes this area as Visitor-CeF~:l~-~erci&A~, %:.~ :c'~3<~]u.:-s~ing tilat t~i~-~y be allowed to eJ. iminahe tile (teco<,:,'::'k:le'a b3.oc>~ if~Dm ~;he block ~al! at the front c,f ~he prol<crty,, Nr~ D~.!sc:t,? ~!aim~ t~is wi~ll had beqn knocked do'~;n three ti~a~ in E'~[%e l~'.:~t anT, , :~%,-ha],f y~}ars~ and felt it t,zas useless to '1:~:.%,, to ~aintai~ it, ~fa3,~,.~ sui'~nia~e~t a p!o~ plan noting the location of this wai!~ and ~ta[ef! that tlte staff reco~n~ends approval of the :::'eq*~es~", s~IDject tc th~. co'~ditions which he outlined. ~5~. ~4)~on oalseth~ the owner, stated he agreed with the condi~:ic~m The Coati,elision agz'eed that the request ~.~a~ ~UC (Guyer--~regscn) Approval of the request to eliminate the d~e~r~ rive screen block from the block wall at the front of Lhe ?~operty aC $![~ Third Avenue~ heaving only ~e regular block at !ow !ev~i, Ti~e appzoval is s~ject to the following conditions: !. The area bet~een the wall and the sidewalk shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director, 2. The parkway area between ~ curb and sidewalk shaS~l be filled concrete per Engineering specifications. Reo'uest on Sidewalk ~3~uirement in the Bonita Tierra Subdivision Director of Planning Warren reviewed this matter whereby the Commission approved the tentative map of the ~ubdivision on June 19, 1967, and a variance pe.rmitting the reduction in certain lot sizes. The variance has been appealed and for this reason, the map has not gone to Council and will be placed on this same agenda. One of the items that was not resolved at the Commission meeting in June was the question of the side- walks. The Comn%%ssion directed that a survey be made of the subdivi- sions in the Bonita area to get their reaction to whether or not side- %~alks should be put in. The results of this survey were mailed to the Cemmission. The staff feels that some form of minimum sidewalk should be constructed in view of the fact that there will be long streets and steep topography in this subdivision. It would also help to stop erosion behind the curbs. Chairman Stewart commented that he dislikes to see the Conhmission again in a Dosition whereby they will not be consistent with what they have done in the past° Member Ad~s commented on the area around Putter Drive and stated that this street d,%finitely did not need sidewalks. Mr. Frank Ferreira~ 3715 Putter Drive, Bonita, agreed adding that anothe~ area in town ~h~t does not need sidewalks is Cresta Way. He added that he can point out many areas in the City where the lack of sidewalks makes it a more attractive area. Director Warren intricated that the character of Cresta Way has been established and would look well, with or without sidewalks. T~e Commission discussed the erosion problem~ Chairman Stewart declared that there are great amounts of dirt on the sidewalks in many areas after a rainstorm. City Attorney Lindberg commented that it was the duty of each property owner to clean up the sidewalk in front of his property. Mr. Howard O~sley, Assistant City Engineer, felt that the construction of sl~ewal.~s in stopping erosion was not a serious matter to be consid- ered. They feel that sidewalks wc~ld encourage children to keep off the roads, and it is also desirable for people stepping out of cars to step onto a sidewalk rather than ice plant~ etc. Mro Myron Dalseth, Guav~t Avenue, stated that he has a s~)division st~lcte~ on sloping property and feels sidewalks are not needed. If chii~ren are playing in the road~ Mr. Dalseth maintained, you. can see them, whereas if they a~e riding their skate boards or bikes down a side'walk, they find themselves in the middle of t~e road when they come to the bottom of the hill because it is too diffi,~ult for them to n~ake the turn. The Commission ~iscussed the request for waiver and questioned whereby they could draw the line on such requests° Mr. War~en remarked that ~ach case has to be judged on its own~ It should be related to the frontage of the lots. MSC (G~uyeruAdams) Ri~co~end approval of the waiver of sidewalks for the Bonita ~ierra Subdivision. ~he motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Guyer~ Adams, Stewart and Rice° NOES: Member Gregson AESEN~: Members York and Hyde City At'~orney Lindberg suggested that this be an item for discussion for the next Commission work,hop so that the Commission can establish some pclicy ~s the question of sidewalks in future subdivisions. ~q%~,~st for an Extension of Time - W. R. C~r~ Company - End of Guava .... Avenue~ 300 ~lock Conditionaf~-~it Director of Planning Warren reviewed the Commission's approval on Dece~¢~er 12, 1964~ of a conditional use permit ~o allow construction of a 70--unit convalescent facility at tile end of Guava Avenue~ di- rectly west of the Doctor's Park. The permit was approved subject to ~he staff's approval of detailed building and site plans prior to con- struction. The staff feels that no significant changes have taken place in this area to prevent any extension of time and, therefore, reco~rm~ends a one-y~ar extension. MSUC (Adams-Rice) Approval of a one-year extension of time° N~w Pro~os~d Zoni~ Ordinance Directo~ of Planning Warren noted that t,~o members of the Con~uission wfli be away for tile month of S~pten'~er~ Chairman Stewart will be out of to~n for 6 week~ and Me~er Gregson for four weeks. He added that there are two co~ittees studying the text of this new ordinance and the staff feels that they should be given 30 days to do this. [~r. Warren asked that a date for the next public hearing on this proposed ordinance be set ah the next Commission meeting (August 21). AD JOU RN~.~NT MSUC (Rice-Guyer) Meeting adjourned until the meeting of August 21~ 1967. Tt%e meeting adjourned at 10:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fulasz, Secretary.