Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1966/01/17 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA January 17, 1966 The adjourned regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, ~atiforn~a was held on the above date in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, with the following members present: Stevenson, Vaden, Adams, Guyer, Stewart, Smith and .~oh~son. Absent~ None. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, Planning Draftsman Irish, C~ty Attorney Lindberg, and Principal E~g~neer Harshman. STATEMEN? TL~ Secretar% of the Commission hereby states that she did post within 24 hours of adjournment, as provided by law, the order for the adjourned meeting of danuary 3, i966. AF~RgVAL OF MINUTES MSdC (Adams-dohnson) M~nutes of January 3, 1966, be approved, as mailed. REZONiNG - PUBLIC HEARING: (Cont'd) Northwest Corner of Second Avenue and Palomar Street - Simon and Rose Aardeema R-1 to R-3 Oirector of Plannlng Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the proposed rezoning and the adjacent land use. He reviewed the matter whereby this was continued twice, aqd said that representatives were present tonight to answer the Commission's questions. The applicant is requesting R-3 zoning which would allow a maximum density oF ~ ~it per 1000 square feet of land area, and a request for a reduction of front ~etb~ck from 25 feet to 20 ~eet. The Jay-L-Jay apartments are to the south of this property; the land to the north, east and west is County-land zoned R-2A (duplexes ~d some agricultural uses); however, at present, most of the area zoned R-2-A in t~: Codnty is developed with single-family dwelllngs or lies vacant. The General Plan ce:~!gnates medium density residential for the area north of Palomar Street; however, cetta~ types of ]ow-density multiphe-fam~ly could be appropriate~ ~h~ being the time and place as advertised, the continued public hearing was opened. ~r. P~u] M~ller, realtor, 350 "E" Street, representing the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. ~;mon Aardema, stated this was the highest and best use for the land, based upon ~brrou~ding uses; the area lends itself to R-3 zoning rather than single-family development. Also, the fact that Palomar Street has been opened through to the Free- way a~d carries heavy traffic gives more reason for zoning this area to R-3. Mr~ S. Coven, stated he owns the land north of this property and is in favor of the rezo~ing if the Commission would rezone all of that land north of Palomar Street within the City llm~t. ~e~e ~e~g no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. ~1- Member Adams commented that the area lends itself more to single-family development ~ something with lower-priced homes and that they have to stop the R-3 zoning in th!s area somewhere, that this would be a good place. V~c~-Chairman Stewart remarked that there was an abundance of R-3 land now in the ~iity that is vacant. He felt that more high-density R-3 zoning in th~s particular area would be contrary to good planning principles; that ~t would not promote a good grade of development. Member Gbyer questioned the staff's recommendation on that area to the north. ~!~ector Warren stated the staff did not study the adjacent area for any possible rezo~i~g since it was not part of the request, and also because the staff is not recommending that subject area be rezoned to R-3. The property here is such that it i~ clearly developable for single-family homes and even though the County land ~u~roundi~g this piece of property is zoned for duplexes, none have been constructed ~n th~s area - only single-family homes. Mr. Warren declared that because there is R-3 zoning south of this property doesn't mean it should continue to the north~ Mrs Miller stated that he has numerous duplexes for sale at the present time, and it is the most difficult property to sell, except for the higher-priced ones. Every- th~ng i~ this particular area is changing - since Palomar Street has opened up, a ~ew Safeway store is being built to the west, and there are two service stations on the corners. The Jay-L-Jay apartments have no vacancies, which indicates a need for mote mu~tipie-fam~ly zoning in this area. Mr. Warren explained that the staff is not indicating that there is a surplus amount of R-3 zoning in the City, but the fact that because Palomar Street has opened up all the way through and that there are now apartments south of this street is not a valid reason to rezone that property north of the street for the sa~ use~ You cannot rezon~ everything along our quarter-section streets to multiple-family. Member Vaden, speaking as an individual and not necessarily as a member of the Commission, stated he is quite disappointed with the Jay-L-Jay apartments, that it does not give credit to the City, and certainly does not upgrade the area° He felt t~e Commission should strive to avoid this same thing to the north. Member Johnson agreed, adding that if R-3 was considered for this area, then the "D" zone should be attached so that there would be some control of the development that wobJd go MSUC (Vaden-Johnson) Rezoning be denied based on the following: i. 7r~,e General Plan designates medium density residential for properties located north of Palomar Street (4 to 7 units per gross acre). 2° T'~ere is an abundance of R-3 zoned land in the City, and it is questionable that still more of this zoning is needed at the present time. 3~ ~he apartments which exist to the south are single-story structures and would not be incompatible with single-family dwellings. 4~ ]he requested rezoning would be contrary to good rezoning practice. VARIANCES P:L;6L~C HEARING: iCont~d) Thomas A. Davies I 385 First Avenue - Request to Split Parcel into Lots W~thout Required Street Frontage 5irector of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the pro- posed ~ot split, stating this matter has been continued from the last meeting to allow the applicant to study this further and meet with the staff. Mr. Warren discussed the staff proposals for the property indicating that Plan "E" was the recommendation of the staff (lot split into 3 parcels with a 25 foot easement to the north). Plan ~A" was suggested at the last meeting also since it has the ease- ment ~nn!~g through the mlddle of the lot, thus eliminating any alleys on the south ~>r ~o:rth of sa~d property; however, th~s Plan split the lot into four parcels which would be d~ficult to develop. Mr. Warren added that based on the total square footage h,e ~as ~n the lot, the applicant could legally split h~s lot into four p~cel~ based o~ 7,000 square foot lots; however, he is applying for a variance be- cause some of these :ots will not be fronting on a 50 foot dedicated street. The Comn~issio~ questioned whether the easement would meet the standard requirements ~f the C~ty aad whether ~t would be acceptable to the Fire and Police departments. Mr. Warre~ stated the improvements would have to be acceptable to the C~ty Engineer ~d the w~dth of the easement ~s adequate for the C~ty emergency vehicles. ~r~e t!ea~ing was then declared reopened. Mr~ ]homa~ Davies, the applicant~ stated that he has increased the first three lots to approx!mately 9,000 square feet leaving the rear lot over 10,O00 square feet. The ~rees and shrubbery presently on the property would be maintained~ The entire ease- me~t would be paved (25 feet) plus a planting strip. L~f~rm~r'~ Steveqson questioned the C~ty control on the easement. City Attorney Lind- berg stated there should be no great problem in maintaining this easement or repairing i~ because of any excessive use - this would not be the problem here - the only thing wo~id be perhaps in keeping it clean~ The applicant could state in his deed that if rke easement is not cleaned up, the City could go in and clean it up and this could be a lie~ against the property owner's. 61rector Warre~ read the recommendations of the staff for approval. Mr. Davies stated rcey were all agreeable. M~'~ Do~ Ck,ase, 373 First Avenue, stated he objects to the easement situated next to h~is property line. He referred to the petition presented at the last meeting pro- te:~tli~g th~s lot spli~ ~e felt this could turn into possible multiple-family rentals which would depreciate the homes in this area. fie has a wall 27 feet long starting 8i feet from his property line - there wou]d be no wall or screening from the easement to hie home~ he would be subjected to the steady traffic here. He originally moved ne~e ~'~a bought this house for investment purposes and now feels that he would be t~k~':g a loss o~ h~s home~ if this request were approved. ~. ~eoCge McLa~,ghlln, 389 F~st Avenue, objected to the 4-way lot split, as this was ~oz ~r.e or!git:al [~tenc 13 years ago when he bought his home here. He questioned was~ wou~iJ p~eve~t the other property owner's in this neighborhood coming in and asking for ~e ~eme ~hi~g~ He favored Plan "E" splitting it into 3 parcels as he felt this wo~!d ~ be jeopardizing e~7 properties around it. The'e being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams commented that the development, as proposed by the Planning staff, is compatible. The lots are large and would be reasonable. Member Vaden indicated he would favor a direct split into two parcels. Chairman Stevenson remarked that he would favor Plan "A" splitting the lot into 4 parcels with ~n easement down the middle. Directo' Warren declared this Plao would be creating two lots that would be difficult to develop s~nce they would have to maintain a 15 foot setback from the easement. V;ce-Chairman Stewart said he could sympathize with the property owner on the north; ~owe~er~ the same is true with all corner lots in the City - you have traffic from 10 feet of your bedroom window~ however, in this s~tuation, considering the setbacks e~d the easement, there would be approxlmately 40 to 45 feet from Mr. Chasers residence ~:o t~e next house. My. Davles stated he would be agreeable to building a wall back to the rear of his p~operty. Member Johnson stated he felt there would not be a tremendous amoupt of traffic here - a~d tMat there was not a sufficient reason to take a negative stand on the appllcation~ MSC !'StewartIAdams) Variance request be granted subject to the following condltions: A~y dwelling constructed on Lot '~A" shall front on First Avenue. All homes to be constructed on these parcels shall have plans submitted to the Planning Commission for approval prior to obtaining a building permit. Approval ,sMal! be based upon the deslg~ of the proposed dwellings being harmonious with the area. 3. Fhe easement shall be paved with 2" AoC. on a 3" base, or 3-5/8" concrete for its e~ti~e length and the south 20' of ~ts width. The north 5' of lts width shall be uE~llzed for landscaping purposes. 4. ~ouses shall be set back a minimum of 15 feet from the easement. G~ages shall be set back a m~nimum of 20 feet from the easement. 6. Each parcel without street frontage shall provide at least two (2) onsite surI faced parking spaces in addition to the required two-car garage. 7. lhe dwelling presently located on the property shall be removed prior to the ~ssuar, ce of occupancy permits on Parcel "D". 8. A ~x foot (6~) high solid wall or fence to be erected from the front yard set- back ~o the ~ear of the adjacent home on the north, : the event ~e paving and landscaping of subject access easement is not properly m~i~aioed, the C~ty shall enter and maintain said property, the cost of which shal~ be bo~ne by the property owners. IOn Property to be split in accordance with the attached plat on file~ Finding~ be as follows: T~at there are practical differences and unnecessary hardships within the meaning of Ordinance NOn 398 as amended which would result in the strict compliance of the prov]sions of sa~d ord]nance~ So stated as delineated below. 2o That there are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to the property herein involved or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to property or class of uses in the same zone. The subject property is a one- acre parcel Jn an area predominantly composed of lots whose size vary between 7,000 - 8~000 square feet. 3° The grar~ting of such variance is necessary for the preservation of the sub- sta~tlal property right of the applicant. The applicant is presently being den~ed the privilege of dividing his property into lots, the size of whlch are prevalent in the immediate vicinity and for which the area Js zoned. 4~ The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property improvements in the zone or district in which said property is located. The applicant proposes to erect four single- family dwellings at a net density of approximately 11,000 square feet per unit, a density which is considerably lower than that which exists in the immediate v~cinJtyo Motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Stewart, Adams, Sm[th, Johnson, and Guyer NOES: Members Stevenson and Vaden ABSENT: None ffEARING: San Diego Trust & Savings Bank - 4L~4 ,,H,I Street - Request for Reduct[on ~n Setback - 25' to 5~ for Si~n The appiicat~o~ was read in which a request was made for a reduction in front yard ~etD~ck from 25 feet to 5 feet for the purpose of erecting a sign. A:~ociate Planner Ma nganeJli submitted a plot plan noting the location of the Bank a~d tk~e proposed sign. Mr. Manganelli stated the staff recommends approval of this rea~est ~ince there are existing signs [n the Shopping Center further down "H" Street that are closer than 25 feet and in the setback area. The proposed sign would measure 9 x 5'6"; it will be two-sided and stand 25~ from the ground. l'ris be~ng t~e time and place as advertised~ the public hearing was opened° Mr. £~ Wills~ representing the S. D~ Trust & Savings Bank, stated he was preaent to anCwer any questions on the request. Member Vaden asked if the sign would be moving or flashing° Mr. Wills stated it will be ~lumi~ated but not flashing. Member Johnson questioned the style of the sign. Mro Wills stated this was approved at that meeting at which their original request was granted. T~ere being no further comment~ either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. MS~C (Vade~-Johnson) Variance request be approved subject to the following conditions: l~ Subject sign shall not extend beyond the property line. 2~ ~'he proposed s~gn shall be non-moving and Don-flashing. F~i~dings be as follows: T~ere are practical differences and unnecessary hardships within the meaning of Ordinance Noo 398 as amended which would result in the strict compliance of the provisions of sa~d ordi~ance~ So stated as delineated below. 2~ There are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to the property herein i~voived or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to property or class of uses in the same zone° Setbacks of 25' are normally con- sidered excessive in commercial zones; however, this setback was left after the rezo~ing to assure that the building would be set back from the street. 3~ Granting such variance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial property right of the applicant. Without th~s variance, the applicant is de- prived of the right to display signs ~n the manner allowed the other property owners along this street. 4. ~he granting of this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property improvements in the zone or district in which said property is located. S~milar setbacks do exist in the area, and ~he ~te~t of the ordinance ~s be~mg observed~ Pt~l~ ~EAR~N~ Percy & Maud Waters I 317 "D" Street - Request to Build on Lot Without Required Street Frontage ~he applic~tlon was read in which a 'request was made to split the existing lot facing ~r~ "~" Street and to use the resultant ~ot on the north by utilizing a 16 foot ease- ment ~rom ~imb~li Terrace~ A~ociat~ Plamne~ Mangarelli s~bmltted a plot plan noting the location, the ex~sting zori~g ~nd land use, stating this was the last of the double-frontage lots in this a~ea. ~he applicants propose to utilize K~mball Terrace as access; the driveway is ~ty property~ Mr~ Manganell~ ~tated there would be one change in the staff's recom- m~d~t~o~ ~- #2 I instead of 2" concrete on an appropriate base, the base should be 4'~ o~ coo¢rete o~ an appropriate base~ Mro Manganell~ discussed the existing garage o~ ?,e prem~se~ which would h~ve to be removed and relocated~ as required by ordinance~ ~ri~s being the time and p~ace as advertised~ the public hearing was opened. M~. ~. ~i~l~$bery~ 3!2 K~mball Terrace~ stated he owns the lot to the east of this p~op~ ~ot. ~e spoke of the commo~ driveway declaring that he had to pay one-half t~e co~t o~ the improvements for it. ~e would now request that some sort of separation be mad~ here so that he could have a private easement to his house and the other two p'~p~,~y owners wo~ld use the other side of this dr~veway~ -6- V~ce-Chairman Stewart remarked that this driveway was dedicated to the City and even though a private driveway, it does now belong to the City and he felt the Commisslon had no authority to require the applicant to divide the driveway as requested. Mr. Will~am Harshman, Principal Engineer, explained that in situations such as this, the Engineering Division requires the property owners to draw up an agreement to use ~ commo~ driveway. They now have a two-party agreement for this particular driveway, which wi1! have to be revised and executed as a three-party agreement. As to re- deslgn~ng the driveway, Mr. Harshman stated they could go along with what the property owners request as long as they bear the cost of the improvements. Eity Attorney Lindberg informed the Commission that this was a dedicated portion of a driveway and as such, they could not restrict the public from using it. The questi!on before the Commission Js whether or not to allow another property owner to frgrzc or~ this easemen[; right now they have a large driveway that is a public street. M~r'~. Peace, daughter of Mr~ and Mrs. Waters, and speaking for the applicants, s~ted that the division of the property would bisect an existing garage; they haze ~greed to take this garage down. Zhe driveway Js 35 feet wide at one point and the en~r~r~ce is 22½ feet wide; they agree to widen this driveway at the mouth to 30 fee[~ but would be reluctant to put up any sort of d[vlsion that would become a traffic hazard~ Cra~r,~a~ Stevenson questioned whether the applicants propose to build another garage o~ the;r lot, as required by ordinance, after they remove this ex]sti~g one. mr'~ Peace stated the new owners will be constructing their own garage; however, her p~re~t~ have no plans to replace their garage since they do not have a car and are quilte elderly with no foreseeable need for a garage° Director Warren commented that it was unfortunate that this situation has come about; [tat whether or not her parents would ever have a need for a garage is not the gove~r~mg factor. This is a technicality, and according to the ordinance, the garage musz be replaced. City Attorney LJndberg stated that the garage, as it now exists, ¢]olates setback requirements as well, and by having to split the lot as proposed, doe~ c~eate a~ additional problem for the lot at 317 "D" Street. He advised Mrs~ Peace tm~t ~te ~D~ Street property would be ~n violation of the zoning ordinance, a~d that [he owr!ers of this property should either apply for a variance or make plans to replace the garage. Mr. Lindberg added that should the Commission grant this variance, he and [he. staff and the applicant can get together and work out the problem of the garage. M~:;. Peace questioned whether a variance would be granted to remove the garage with- out replacing it, City Attorney Lindberg stated that such reques[s have been con- $¢de'ed. =lchough not favorably. Mr~ Fii~bery declared he was required to sign the driveway agreement before he couid obtain a building permit, and asked that the Commission impose th]s condition or~ the new p~operty owner. r wa~ ~oted that one letter of protest was received from Lou~s Gerken, 328 Kimbal! -7- There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams commented that the request would put to use a very good lot; he could see no problem except the garage and felt this could be worked out. MSUC (Adams-Stewart) Variance be approved subject to the following conditions: in The proposed property split would leave the house on the south without a garage° It !s recommended that a plan be submitted showing the relocation of such garage, ~r the construction of a new garage and a permit taken out prior to any building permits issued for the northerly parcel. 2. T~e e~sement shall be paved to a minimum width of twelve (12) feet from the exi:~r:irg driveway access in Kimball Terrace to the proposed garage. To match the existing drives, paving shall be 2" A.C. on 3" base, or 3-5/8" concrete on a~ appropriate base. 3. A common driveway agreement shall be drawn up between the three property owners co~car~ed, prior' to any building permit being issued by the City. One copy of such agreement shall be filed with the City Planning Department. i~ dec, loping the lot, normal R-1 setbacks shall be observed, with a front set- back of fifteen feet (15'). Fi~d¢~gs a~e as fol!ows: There are practical differences and unnecessary hardships within the meaning of Ord;nance No. 398 as amended which would result in the strict compliance of the provisions of said ordinance. 2. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to the property herei~ involved or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to property or class of uses in the same zone. The lot contains adequate area to d;vide into two 7,000 square foot plus lots, In addition, the proposed ease- ment is located on a wide bend ]n Kimball ~'errace and therefore, will not be of a~y substantial length. Th~s lot remains the only through lot in the area that has not been spl~t. 3. Gra~ting th~s variance ~s necessary for the preservation of the substantial property righ~ of the applicant. The applicant ~s required to maintain a density of devel- opment far in excess of the zoning applied to the property. The lot can logically 3e spl~t adding to the value of ~he entire area. ~. Gra:~ti~g this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property improvements in the zone or district in which said property is located. The lots in this area are generally of the same size and t~e remaining lot sizes will be in exce~s of the requirements of the ordinance. PU.SLiC HEARING: Lloyd B. Ostrander - 567 Mclntosh - Request for Reduction in Rear Yard Setback from 15 feet to 14 feet ~he application was read in which a request was made for a reduction ~n rear yard eLback from ;5 feet to l~ feet for the purpose of constructing 30 apartment units. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the area, adjacent land use and zoning. Mr. Warren commented on the number of apartments the applicant is proposing to construct stating this number will have to be restricted since the numbe, of units ~s based on the total square footage of the property. Or~glnally, the density here was set up based on the center line of the street; however, since then, tk, e street has been dedicated and is no longer a part of the applicant's p~operty. Director Warren asked that discussion on this be restricted - that this w~ll be worked out w~th the appllcant and the staff - and that only the request for reduction in setback be considered ton~ghto The applicant is requesting the reduction f-om 15 feet to 14 feet I i foot seems to have no measurable effect. 'ke ~t~ff would suggest that landscaping at the entrance to the parking lot be a co,ndit~on of approval, Mr~ Warren then discussed the building which, as proposed, would ba 320 feet Iong~ He remarked that viewing this from "C" Street, ~t would look :!~ke a "barracks"; he felt the building should be split ~nto either 2 or 3 This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened~ Mro Lloyd Ostrander, the applicant, stated he purchased this property about a year ago, a~d at present, it is nothing but wasted space. They now plan to construct some apartment units here since they have a demand for more units, especially by co]lege ~tudentSo Mr. Tkom~s Whittingham, 527 Sea Vale Cou~t,referred to his signing the application as ~pp~oving the request. He said he was mislead on this, that he had no idea what the appJlc~nt was proposing for this section of his property° He said he talked to M,. Oscrander thls very day and was told by the applicant that he would eventually llke to build his home on this property - no mention was made of the two-story apartment bu~ldingo Mr° Whittingham declared there is also a deed restriction limiting building here to one-story° He objects to the applicant's plan to use the Sea Vale e~,~rance. Ne indicated he was speaking for Mr. Edward Fea, 527 McJntosh Street, wmo a!so signed the application. They both signed it with the understanding that ther~ would be no traffic from Sea Vale Court° Chairman Stevenson questioned whether the applicantls parking requirements could be met within his own property. Mro Warren stated they could not, and whatever agree- ments were entered into by Mr. Ostrander and Whittingham are not pertinent. Primarily, under consideration tonight is the reduction in setback for the residential building~ The app~]cant is purchasing the two additional lots for parking; however, the staff k~ received no site plans. In any case for a variance, Mr° Warren continued, the (ommission can impose any conditions they feel are reasonable. V'ce-£%air'man Stewart discussed the aspect of having the one long building instead of two or three buildings. Mr. Paul Dege, architect for the project, declared they would front the building on "C" Street and feels it wili not be objectionable. There wi~l be four st~,irways on the building with one long balcony for the second story° There wili be a distance of lO feet between this building and the existing ones. The Commission discussed this building further and Member Johnson suggested the "D" zone be ]mposedo City Attorney Lindberg commented that the question before them was the setback reduction i whether the proposed building was one unit or broken up into 2 or 3 was another matter that could be worked out with the staff~ Mr~ Dege ~tated that cutting the building in half would not make that much difference and they wo~ld be willing to do th~s. M'r, Oszra~der commented that he counted his empty parking spaces on his property during the course of one day and has had at least 42 spaces empty which is sufficient for the new units~ however, he must comply with the ordinance and provide more. There beir~g no further comment, either for or against, the hear[ng was declared clo~ed. Member Adam~ commented that with the architect's plans of fronting the building on '~C" Street, and his plans for the stairways, etc., he felt it would be a very good looking building - better than if he spilt the buiidlng into 2 or 3 segments. Member .~oh~on asked about the architecture of the buildJng~ Director Warren stated i~ wil~ follow the same type construction as the other existing buJldlngs, that it wa~ too !ate to do anything to revise the architecture now. He still felt it wou~d be better to split the buildings up~ which would prevent the monotony of one solid building a~d having the tenants walk past everyone's door to get to their own apart- ment. Speaking for the variance, Director Warren stated the request was reasonable. MSUC (Guyed-Adams) Variance for setback reduction be approved with the following conditions: The parking area to the east be lald out per the revised plans on file; ail li~es to be double-stripped. ffwo (2) street trees to be planted, one one each side of the driveways (15 size m~nlmum) with an approved ground cover~ Both landscaped areas to be watered by a ~pri~k]e~ syatem and continuously maintained. 3. The proposed building to face on "C" Street. ~. Variance is gra~ted for reduction of setback only; the number of units proposed co be constructed is not hereby approved. ~ir~d~gs are a~ foJ]ows~ That there are practical differences and unnecessary hardships within the meaning of t~e g~dJna~ce No. 398 as amended which would result in the strict compliance ~f ~he provisions of said ordinance~ 2o There are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to the property kerei- ~nvolved or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to property or class of uses in the same zone° The rear property line is approxi- mately 30 feet from any usable area and about 25 feet above same. ]he intent of t~e ordinance for adequate light and air will st~ll be maintained, since buitd~g i~ unlikely to occur closer than 25 feet to property line on the adjacent parcel. 3. The granting of such variance is necessary for the preservation of the sub- stantJal prope*ty right of the applicant. The property is serving no productive purpose at the present time; the reduction ~n setback would allow development oF this land to take place° ~. Granting th~s variance will not be materlaJly detrimental to the public welfare o~' ~njurious to the property improvements in the zone or district ~n which said property is located~ because the severe slope to the rear of the lot provides a much greater setback and open area than is normally found in th~s zone~ P~BL]C 4EARtNG: Proposa! to Change Name of Orange Street D;recto, of Planning Warren reviewed the matter whereby there is presently an Orange Street in :he north part of the City and an Orange Avenue in the southerly section~ S~r:ce ~t Cs desirable to eliminate such confusio~, a change of name for one of the :treats wa:s referred to the Comm~sslo~ for consideration by the C~ty Council° T~e staff would suggest that Orange Street be changed since it lies within the City wherea:: Orange Avenue l~es partly in the Cou~tyo b~rector Warren stated that questionnaires were sent out to the property owners and -esidents ~nvolved at Orange Street and the following answers were received: 60 :~ d;d -ot have trouble receiving maiiI40 ~ did; 68½ % Would not object to charg!ng the name of the street - 25½ % would and 6 % didn't care; 66 % would not object to the name I'Sea Vale Street'~ whereas 20 % would and 14 % suggested another .. ~meo fha ~taff would recommend that the name be changed to Sea Vale Street~ even t~ough !!t iF not contiguous with this street but does exist to the east, and both the Fire Department and Police Department have requested that we try to assign the same ndme to segments of streets following the same alignment. The streets would never con~ect; in this case, to do so would split Mr. Ostrander~s property. Member ~i)hn:son suggested the letter "N" indicating "north" be placed before Orange Street. 9irector Warren ~ndicated this would not solve the problem as most people wou!d not use the letter or word when caillng in on an emergency. Member Adam~ spoke against ~amlng streets the same when they are not contiguous. D!rec~:or Warren ~ndicated this has always been the policy of the Police, Fire Depart- ~e'ts, and Post OfFice, and that you can easily find out where you are by the block fumber~. Vice-Chalr~n Stewart agreed addlog that it may be confusing to the stranger, but it ~s done throughout the Onited States. Tn!s being the t~me and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared opened. Mr. Gui:nar Hutson, 680 Orange Street, fe~t that renaming this street "Sea Va!e" wo~ld cause a lot of trouble; he would go along with Mr. Johnson's suggestion that it be cai;ed N~ Orange Street. Mr. Sh~e!ds, owner of property o~ this street, stated that most of the people that answered the questionnaire 8re transients, and he objects to these people dictating what ~hould be done on this street. He has had no problem w~th the street name si,:ce ee has tgved there, and strongly feeis the name should be retained~ There being ~o further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Hember iohnson asked if there would be any hardship involved for the property owners ,if c~e street qume were changed. Director Warren indicated this would depend on e,:ch case; there was no way to measure the exact amount. ~ cc. Cr:~a~rmen Stewart remarked that since the request for the name change came from the City /o~r}cil, a~d it has also been requested by the Post Office, the Fire and Police Pepartments~ he felt the need was a valid one, and the name should be changed. MSC (~ye--Vaden) Recommend to the City Council consideration of the change of came for 3~rarge Street to Sea Vale Street in order to be consistent with the alignment of the existing Sea Vale Street east of this street~ :ne motio,r carried by the followling vote, to-wit: AVES: ~embers Guyer, Vaden, S~ewart, Smith and Stevenson ~:,O[~ Member~ Adams and John~o~ A~SE~'~ ~o;~e ~embet Ad:,~s ~t~ted he did not object to the change of name, but to changing the name to ~ea ~a]e ~EAR;NU: (Canted) Amendment to Zon;~n9 Ordinance Re~ulat~n~ Placement of Poiiticai Signs City Attor',ey c~ndberg staled he has been working with the attorney's office San b~ego on tkis matter and had hopes of having a revision of the draft of this ordinance ~eady tonight. However, there are still some questions that must be ~olved: t~e bomds to remove the s~gns, the question of restr~cting signs Jn any area, etc. M,~ c :~dberg ~ugge~ed a workshop meeting be held on this and that the matter be once ag~i~ ~ort!inued u~t~l the first or second meeting in February. The next election oe held or Apr!] !2~ Director Warren slated the staff was in no particular hu-ry on ch!~; howe~e~, it has been requested by one of the candidates. He would suggest a CO~:L'Fa~;i~:;e urt'i~ the second meeting of February (2ist). Mr. Lindberg stated this wod]d give t~em plenty of time. T'he pr]mary concern is trying to eliminate the mere al,ray of po/;tJc:~l signs on every vacant tot and fence in town° He felt the-e should be ~,;me pubiic pride and spirit to mold the candidates in this direction. MS(& L~ :ewer t- :okn~on) ~earing be continued until the second meeting of February ~;i.:~]i;~ uN - ~e~tat~ve Map of Hi]ill top ]errace A: .o~:r~te Pi~r~ner Manger,alii submitted the tentative map noting the location as ex- [er~d:'~g from '?:~b]~ ~ve co F~rst Avenue and about midway between Pa!omar ~qd Q~ ',t:rd ~(;'~,,~z~. Mr', Mac, ganelii reviewed the recommendations of the Pla~inlizg c~mm~rt! ~g ~,~t this ;s the f~rst subdivision to come under the new ordinance re- qu:r!~g ~qaerground ut~ities. Mr. 3.r ,~cL¢:~e~ th~ subdivider: declared this condition cema as a complete surprise :~ him. Director Warren st3ted that they have to assume that the Couqcil wi11 requ!re -, -;1 ~t:o~ of underground utilitles and there should be i]ttle discussion on it b;r,~t, tPe ~l!iCa~ request~ a variance from that requ]rement~ Hr~ William Harshma~ P~inc[pal Engineer, reviewed the comments of the Engineering Divi~i!o~o ~e commented that there is a lot of vacant land in and around this pro- posed subdivision; he felt the underground utilities should go in. Tre ~ommission d~scussed the requirements of the San Diego Gas & Electric Company concerning the ordinance~ as to transformers, etc. Mro Harshman stated this was all in the ~:ew ordinance. MSLC (~ew~rtlijohn3on) Approval of tentative map subject to the following conditions: A~i z!opes shall be graded and planted in accordance with specifications ~ fiJe ~n the Planning Department and Planning Commission resolution. That a request ~o vacate the easterly l0 feet of First Avenue adjacent to the ~c~bd~v!~Jon be submitted to the City Council prior to Council action on the 3~ 3~ ['ob~as Dr[ve~ the typical sectio~ of the street shall be 36 feet between curbs rather than the 40 feet shown~ In addition, it will be necessary to c~a~ge the dimensions shown from back of walk to the property line from 4½ feet to 6½ feet and the w~dth of the tree planting easement from 5½ feet to 3½ feet° ~he c~oss slope from property line to face of curb shall be !/8" per foot~ 4~ Str~c~aral sections for all streets shall include installation of prime and se~ coats~ 5. Drainage provisions sha!i be subject to approval by the City Engineer. The sub- div!ider shall be required to submit one foot contours beyond the subdivision Dobr~ary in the vicinity of lot 8, so as to provide a permanent record for the fii¢~ of the Division of Eng~neering~ A me~hoJe sha}l be ~nscalled at the southerly end of the sewer on First Avenue. P~ecise treatment of the sewer facli~ty at the curve on street "A", shall be s~bject to approva] by the City Engineer° 8~ ~hi~ ~ubdivis~on is subject to undergrounding of utilities as per recent Or'd~ce of the City Council° 9. ill r~ece~s~ry, the subdivider shall remove a~d replace pavement on the westerly ~f of First Avenue, so as to provide a maximum l0 % cross slope Jn the event iF:~ ~ke ~ew pavement is below the ex~stJng pavement. !0o Tke ~opos~d vacation of the l0 foot width of First Avenue is recommended as be~g consistent wi~h previous actions on subdivisions immediately north of tke ~ubject ~i~eo ~, 7~e subdivider shall provide utility easements at the rear of all lots or, as an ¢ite¢~te, s~all provide letters from each of the affected utility companies, ieas!~g the!r respective !nterest in obtsining such easements, -13- Appointment of Two Commissioners to Counc[I-Comm~sslon Annexation Committee D~ector of Pi~ing Warren slated that two members of the Council have been appointed and tkey k~ve requested the appointment of two Commissioners to serve on this Com- m t'~e~ These people w~tl meet with representatives of National C~ty to discuss ~weetwater '~al]ey annexations. Chairman Stevenson said he discussed this with Mr, Warren, and it was decided to ask for volunteers since the meeting dates of ~E~s Committee were uncertain. Member Adam~ suggested Vice-Chairman Stewart serve on Lhis Committee. Mr. Stewart stated ~e O~d VO~unLeer his services. Member Vaden stated he volunteered to serve ~o~ that he felt the co~flicLs with h~s job had been eliminated. Member Adams was ~gge~ted to serve o~ this Committee. £ba~rm~i Ste~en~o~ decJared that Ky]e Stewart would serve on the Committee and either [dgar Vaden or Eidward Adams - whichever member would be available on that particular d~te tk~e Committee meets. M~_C ~]uyer-Johqson) Appointment of Members Stewart, Vaden and Adams be approved. M$~C %g(~so,~-Guyer) Meeting adjourn sine die. Respectfully submitted~ Secretary