Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1965/07/07 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA July 7, 1965 The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California, was held at 7 P.M., Monday, July 7, 1965, in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, with the following members present: Stevenson, Comstock, Johnson, Adams and Guyer. Absent: Member Stewart. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, City Attorney Lindberg, City Engineer Cole and Assistant Planner Terrell. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Adams-Guyer) Minutes of June 21, 1965 be approved, as mailed. Request for Approval of Dwelling in Bonita Verde Subdivision Director of Planning Warren submitted the plans for a dwelling to be built on Lot 3, 4040 Troon Way, Bonita Verde Subdivision. The dwelling will be single- story, wood and masonry siding, shake shingles, full garage, and will contain approximately 1900 square feet~ Member Comstock felt the plans for this dwelling were not as elaborate and did not reflect the good taste of those previously approved by the Commission. Mr. Warren commented that this dwelling would have a shake shingle roof and the entire front is wood siding, and would seem to be compatible with those in the subdivision~ Member Johnson remarked that this was under the "D" zone which calls for a plot plan. He wondered whether any landscaping plans were submitted with the plans. Director Warren stated no landscape plans were received for any of the dwellings built in this subdivision; that the Commission had agreed earlier not to require approval of specific plans, but to assure that landscaping would occur. Chairman Stevenson commented on the Committee set up by this subdivision to approve their own plans, and asked if the staff would know whether this committee had approved the plans for this particular dwelling. Member Comstock noted the plans called for wood shingles and felt the Commission should stipulate in their approval that the roofing be of a heavy type shake shingle. A representative of the developer assured the Commission this was the intent of the developer. MSC (Adams-Guyer) Approval of plans for dwelling on Lot 3, 4040 Troon Way, subject to the condition that the roofing material be heavy shake shingles. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Adams, Guyer, Comstock, Stevenson NOES: None ABSTAIN: Member Johnson, because no landscaping plans were submitted. ABSENT: Member Stewart REZONING PUBLIC HEARING: (Cont'd) Frank Ferreira - Parcel Bounded by Moss~ Naples~ and Alpine R-1 to R-3 Director of Planning Warren reviewed the matter stating the initial request was for C-2 zoning which was denied by the Commission. The staff was asked to study R-3 use for the property. Director Warren then submitted seven possible layouts for the property with the vacation of the whole width of Moss Street and some with the vacation of the south half of the street. These studies are based on units having 600 square feet minimum floor area, and ranging from 8 units to 20 units. Director Warren added that a development of residential units on this property is entirely feasible but only with the vacation of Moss Street. He suggested a letter to the City Council asking for the vacation of Moss Street accompany any recommendation for rezoning. Chairman Stevenson declared the public hearing was closed at the last meeting, and the meeting tonight was a continuation of the discussion. Member Comstock felt it would be advisable to rezone this parcel, putting the architectural control on it, and then proceed with the closing of Moss Street. Director Warren suggested a recommendation be sent to the City Council stating the property cannot be properly developed with R-3 use unless the street is vacated. City Attorney Lindberg agreed reiterating that a recommendation for R-3 zoning should go to the Council and pointing out that under present conditions, it doesn't matter what zone is on the property, it is infeasible to develop. Member Comstock questioned whether the Commission could condition a rezoning upon future action of the Council. City Attorney Lindberg stated the Council could adopt an ordinance on the rezoning which would become effective upon the vacation of Moss Street. M - Comstock Recommendation to City Council of approval of R-3-D zoning stating the rezoning from R-1 to R-3-D is in good planning practice, because the property is not suitable for development under present conditions. The Planning Commission also recommends to the City Council the vacation of Moss Street in accordance with the realignment as proposed by the Planning Director and the City Engineer. Discussion - Member Adams remarked that the Commission does not wish to see any development under the present condition - that the recommendation to R-3 zoning should be made only providing that the City Council will take action to correct the intersection of Moss and Naples, making it a right angle intersection. Member Comstock declared the Commission should not condition any rezoning in the City, and should not give an alternative to the City Council. Director Warren commented that the Commission should pass the rezoning on some reason ~ that unless the applicant has additional land, there is no reason for any rezoning. Member Adams felt it should be recommended on the necessity of correcting the alignment. Member Comstock stated he is withdrawing his motion, due to the comments. -2- City Attorney Lindberg stated it was true that the Commission is looking for some type of development, but that rezoning will not facilitate that because only the south half of the street would be rezoned. Director Warren noted that one-half of the street is shown in the development, and that the entire vacation of the street in this matter cannot be rezoned unless it is readvertised. Member Adams commented that if the City Council agrees with the Commission, they will go ahead and take action to vacate the street; then they have the recom- mendation of the Commission for the R-3-D zoning and will then go ahead and rezone it. MSUC (Adams-dohnson) Recommend approval of R-3-D zoning for this property but not unless the intersection of Moss and Naples is corrected to make it a right angle intersection at Alpine. Director Warren suggested the Commission report to the C~ty Council that develop- ment of the property as it now stands is infeasible and with the vacation of Moss Street between Alpine and Naples Street, suitable R-3 development could occur and the Commission would recommend R-3-D zoning on the property only with the vacation of Moss Street between Alpine and Naples Street. City Attorney Lindberg noted there were two separate items - if the City Council is considering street closing, they will consider it as the lack of public need for this street, and rezoning is based on other things, such as increasing the land area so that it can be developed with multiple-family. There is no objection to tylr~g these two together, but that the Commission should not state to the Council that they should not act on it until the vacation has been accomplished. The Commission can simply state that they feel R-3 zoning is proper zoning for the area but without the street closing, it is pointless to accomplish it. Member Adams stated the R-3 zoning would be good zoning practice because the property in its present form cannot be developed. Director Warren questioned any reduction in setbacks. Member Comstock felt this should be considered at the time they bring in their plans for architectural approval. Director Warren indicated another public hearing will have to be called for any request in setback changes. Chairman Stevenson agreed this should be done and it would give the Commission a chance to get the adjacent property owners' opinions on it. Member Johnson commented on the conditions set up by the Planning staff and Engineering Division on the memo to the Commission dated April 1, He wondered if these same conditions could be included in this recommendation to Council. City Attorney Lindberg stated this recommendation has already been sent to the Council at the time they were considerln§ the street vacation, but that perhaps it should be restated. Mr. Frank Ferreira, 3715 Putter Drive, the applicant, questioned whether any of this would entail another public hearing. City Attorney Lindberg stated none need be set by this Commission; however, the City Council will have to hold a hearing. (Prezoning) - Partridge Annexation - R-1-B-30 Director of Plan~ing Warren explained this was initiated by the Commission at the request of the staff. The annexation is now in process, involving 2½ acres, located -3- east of Bonita Bel=Aire Subdivision at the end of Calle Mesita. The owner plans to split this parcel into four lots; they will be single-family zones. The staff recommends R-l-B-30 zoning as the minimum lot sizes for this property, and would suggest the Commission request the City Council to adopt it as an emergency ordinance and keep it ahead of the annexation. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Member Guyer questioned whether there was any problem with a road going through. Director Warren said there was a question of whether they could build on the con- tinuation of Calle Mesita, and it was dec~ded not to extend this street, but that they would be granted sewer, etc., with the provision that they reserve an ease- ment for street purposes through the center of their parcel. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. RESOLUTION NO. 362 Resolution of the City Planning Commission of Chula MSUC (Guyer-Comstock) Vista, California, Recommending to City Council Pre- zoning of the Partridge Annexation Findings are as follows: From facts presented, the Commission finds that public necessity, general welfare, and good zoning practice require the prezonlng to R-1-B-30 of that property described above known as the Partridge Annexation. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS PUBbIC HEARING: Samuel & Joan Smith - 471 "E" Street - Office Use in R-3 Zone The application was read in which a request was made to use a portion of a dwelling (300 square feet) at 471 "E" Street for an insurance office, and also to erect a sign measuring 3 by 4 feet. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location and adjacent land uses. He stated the ordinance requires a minimum of four parking spaces, and the applicant intends to provide for them in the public right-of-way. City Engineer Cole stated that the Division of Engineering would oppose diagonal parking with the right-of-way here and would question the legality of the Commission to granting it. It would have to be approved by the City Council. The intent of the ordinance is such that offstreet parking is not to be in the right-of-way. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Samuel Smith, the applicant, declared the street was wide - 60 feet, which in essence, is a very large parkway and quite difficult to maintain. He stated he doesn't need four parking spaces for his business, but must provide them because the City requires this. He initially intended to provide for a driveway off 'IE" Street, but the City has declined to approve it. Chairman Stevenson questioned whether the applicant had looked into the possibility of locating an office in the commercial district. Mr. Smith said he did not, be- cause he felt a combination home and office was the best solution to his problem. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declare~ closed. -4- Chairman Stevenson questioned the number of employees in the business. Mr. Smith stated he has a girl who comes in a half day. The Commission discussed the possibility of the applicant's obtaining a home occupation. Member Johnson felt this would be the solution since it would not be lacking in harmeny with the area to put such a business in a residential neighborhood; also, it would eliminate the sign and additional parking. Director Warren discussed the sign the applicant would be permitted to have under a home occupation permit, which would probably be a name plate not exceeding four square feet in area containing the name of the occupant of the premises. Member Adams commented that as long as he has been on the Commission - over 7 years now - the Commission has always resisted commercial uses on "E" Street beyond the corner of Fourth Avenue down to Broadway; the General Plan recommends residential use for this area. The establishment of commercial use would have a blighting effect here - there are substantial residential uses immediately across the street. Mr. Adams added that the Commission should try to maintain the residential character as long as they could. MSUC (Adams-Guyer) Application be denied based on the following: 1. It would be incompatible with the residential use now on the street, and would initiate a degradation of a substantial, well-kept residential area. 2. It would conflict with the provisions of the Master Plan. 3. Offstreet parking could not be properly provided on this property. Kromschroeder & Associates - South of Bonita Road~ East of Bonita Cove - Convalescent Facility The application was read in which permission was requested to construct a long- term Care Facility (type "G") on property located south of Bonita Road and east of the Bonita Cove Subdivision. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the pro- posed request, the adjacent land use and zoning. Member Comstock declared he received information that the freeway is to be drostically redesigned in this area, and in order to save time, he would suggest the Commission continue the hearing until such time as this freeway will be redesigned. Director Warren stated he was aware of the problem; however, there would be po set time that the Commission can continue this to because as yet, no one knows when the final plans for the freeway will be ready. The Commission discussed the length of time they could conceivably continue the hearing to. City Attorney Lindberg stated a period of six months would be con- sidered an unreasonable time, but the Commission could continue it to any "reasonable" time. Director Warren felt that time m~ght be of essence to the applicants, but perhaps they would have no objection to continuing it until the next meeting. Director Warren then noted the present alignment of the freeway and pointed out the location of the major interchange on Bonita Road, and the realignment of Vista Road. -5- If the ~ignment is moved a considerable distance east, there will remain an area which, according to the General Plan, would be recommended as tourist commercial. If this does occur, there may be some question as to whether the applicants would care to establish this favility next to a commercial area. Director Warren then noted the plot plan and the proposed parking for the facility. He added that because of the uncertainty of the freeway, he would question any action on it tonight. He talked to Mr. Dekema, State Highway Divls ion, and was told that no conclusion was reached as yet, but they anticipate progress within the next two weeks. Since the design of the interchange is up in the air at this time, the Commission could not endorse the general use in the area. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Darrel~ Fields, representing the applicants, stated the property was now in escrow and they cannot wait until the Highway Department makes up their minds ccn- cerning this freeway. They must have approval of this site before they can go ahead with it. He remarked it could be a period of years before the Highway makes a final decision. Mr~ Norman Johnson, stating he will be the Administrator for the facility, ex- plained that the type "GI' facility meant elderly people who have become "confused" and "disorientated" and because of this, there is the danger of them walking out into the traffic areas. For this reason, the doors to the facility must always be tocted, and when you lock a door, you are then subject to licensing by the Department of Health. They will be caring for approximately 150 people and employing about 65 to 85 people. Member Johnson questioned whether these people will be permitted to go outdoors. Mr. F~elds noted the courtyard in the center of the development for this purpose. Mr. Frank Ferreira, 3715 Putter Drive, stated he is the seller of this property. About 5 months ago, Dave Sheppard of the Division of Highways asked if he could stop Mr. Ferreira's plans for R-3 development on Bonita Road, and they would work to get an alignment here that would be feasible to both parties. He then sent Mr. Ferreira a different set of plans, ones that had gone to Sacramento and had been approved, and gave him permission to go ahead with the development. Approxi- mately one week ago, Mr. Sheppard called again and stated that someone had upset his plans, that the alignment would have to be changed, but for Mr. Ferreira to go ahead with his development anyway. Mr. Dekema informed him that because of the flood control project and Highway 54, they decided to take another look at the area. There is the possibility of moving this alignment 200 feet to the east, but no more than that. Mr. Paul Miller, 315 "E" Street, stated he is one of the investors in this property and promised an access to the development which would be suitable to the City. Dr. Kromschroeder introduced himself and spoke in favor of the development. Member Comstock commented that the Commission can not know for certain that the testimony of Mr. Ferreira's is fact, s~nce the design of the interchange is such that the State does not know whether there will be a cloverleaf or what. Member Comstock added he was concerned about the thought that the Commission could create a spot zoning and have a hiatus between the freeway and this development. The changed alignment might give the Commission an entirely different picture of this use. Director Warren commented that when he talked to representatives of the Division of Highways, they informed him that no dimensions of change are guaranteed at present. He added that the Commission should render a decision, as quickly as possible, for the sake of the applicants; however, they also have an obligation to the City to promote sound development. He would recommend the hearing be continued. MSUC (Guyer-Adams) Public hearing be continued until the next regular meeting - July 19, 1965, so that the staff can meet with representative of the State Highway Department to see if a determination can be made on the proposed freeway alignment Interstate 805. VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING: Cambridge Development Company - South of Loma Verde School to Main Street - (Holiday Estates Subdivision) Reduction in Floor Area The application was read in which a request was made for permission to construct homes having the following minimum square foot floor areas on property known as the Holiday Estates Subdivision: 2 bedrooms - 884 square feet; 3 bedrooms - 1144 square feet; 4 bedrooms - 1248 square feet. Director of Planning Warren noted the location of the area and stated the staff has received no precise plans as yet in order for them to see what house will go on what lot, etc. The ratio proposed by the developer will be: 55 % - 4 bedroom homes, 35 % - 3 bedroom, ~nd 10 % - 2 bedroom homes. As indicated, the floor plans for the 3 and 4 bedroom homes are approximately 50 feet under the Code re- quirements, with the 2 bedroom being considerably less. Director Warren noted the building plans and declared the only entrance to the homes would be a sliding -- glass door; garages would be the full size garages. He questioned the advisability of such front entrances. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. D. Hawkens, 525 Fifield Street, spoke in opposition, stating the Commission should make no deveiation from the ordinance requiring the higher floor areas. Director Warren spoke of the Princess Manor subdivision, somewhat to the east of this development, for which the Commission granted smaller home sizes. He also reminded the Commission about Princess Manor Subdivision #8, for which the Com- mission denied smaller home sizes. Mr. Ben Jaehn, the developer, stated the glass doors give the appearance of a larger home, and he would like to emphasize once again, the area in which he pro- poses to build these smaller homes. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Comstock felt the Commission would be remiss in their duties if they didn't have something in the records to show their feelings on the type of home going into this area - that this is a 'minimum house design, and not of the quality based on any other plans that have been before the Commission up to tonight. He suggested the Commission obtain a firm commitment from the developer as to the ratio of homes he proposed to construct. Director Warren declared the variance covers the entire subdivision as proposed, and -7- the subdivider will be developing it in units. The Commission can approve the variance based on the stipulation that when they bring in the final map for each unit, they will show where they propose to locate the 2, 3 and 4 bedroom homes. Mr. Ben Jaehn reiterated that he lost 16 lots by coming to the City and will be losing 3 or 4 more by having to put another street in. Any plot plan he would submit now will have to be changed from time to time. MSUC (Comstock-Johnson) Variance be approved for the following minimum floor areas: 2 bedroom - 884 square feet, 3 bedroom - 1144 square feet and 4 bedroom - 1248 square feet, subject to the following: the precise location and percentages of each shall be approved at the time of approval of the final map of each unit. The approximate percentages stated before shall prevail. Findings be as follows: 1. There are practical differences and unnecessary hardships within the meaning of the Ordinance which would result in the strict compliance of the provisions of said ordinance. 2. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to the property herein ~nvolved or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to property or class of uses in the same-zone. The majority of the homes in the southern part of the City are small and contain floor areas that, for the most part, are probably below those required by our City ordinance. A variance for comparable small homes has been granted for a subdivision within the City further to the east of this area. 3. Granting this variance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial property right of the applicant. Without this variance, the developer would be required to build homes larger than most of those in the area which would, con- sequently, raise the selling price above most of those in the adjacent areas. 4. Granting 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, since the homes proposed would probably be equal to or a better Quality than most of those lying in the adjacent areas. PUBLIC HEARING: Frank Mercardante - 574 Fifield Street - Reduction in Rear Yard Setback The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction in rear yard setback from 20 feet to 15 feet for the purpose of enclosing an open patio into a room. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the area. He stated the required rear yard setback in an R-1 zone is 20 feet; they are asking for 15 feet. Director Warren then showed a section of the lot involved and that below, noting there would be substantial space between dwellings. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mrs. Frank Mercardante, the applicant's wife, stated the addition would not obstruct the view from the left or right. It is now an open patio, completely roofed; they wish to enclose it, making it into a addition to the home. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed~ -8- After discussion, Director Warren reminded the Commission of the variance they granted at the last meeting which was almost identical to this one and in the same general area. The Commission concurred they had no objections, but stated they would have to find exceptional circumstances. City Attorney Lindberg suggested the Commlss~on follow the Director's comments as reported in his staff memo, pertaining to the extensive grading between the tiers of lots, making the applicant's rear yard somewhat shorter than those found on level land. Member Adams felt the Commission might be setting a precedent here~ Member Comstock declared the exceptional circumstances would be the amount of space between the two houses which is far more than one would normally find. The people to the south sould not be building to the slope and needing this additional land. Member Comstock added the topography of the site should be considered - it is higher and not disturbing other people's space and view. MSC (Comstock-Guyer) Approval of variance for reduction in rear yard setback from 20 feet to 15 feet for construction in accordance with the plot plan on file in the Planning Department. Findings be as follows: 1. There are practical differences and unnecessary hardships within the meaning of the Ordinance which would result in the strict compliance of the provisions of said ordinance. 2. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to the property herein involved or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to the property or class of uses in the same zone. Because of the extensive grading between tiers of lots, the applicant's rear yard is somewhat shorter than those normally found on level land. The distance between dwellings is considerably greater than would ordinarily be found in subdivisions of this type. The graded slope between lots would prevent this distance from being significantly d~menished. 3. The granting of such variance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial property right of the applicant because the constant west wind limits the use of the patio area unless it is enclosed. 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 since the intent of the ordinance would still be observed. Necessary light and air and general open space will be permanently maintained, since a difference in elevation between this lot and the one to the south is such that considerable distance between dwellings will be permanently maintained. The motion passed by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Comstock, Guyer, Johnson and Stevenson NOES: None ABSTAIN: Member Adams ABSENT: Member Stewart -9- AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE: PUBLIC HEARING (Cont'd) - Proposed Ordinance Establishin~ Architectural Review Member Comstock asked that discussion on this matter be held until they have a workshop meeting. Director Warren reminded the Commission that th~s matter had been continued from the June 7 meeting and that was continued to this meeting. He remarked they now have a substantially revised draft, and questioned whether it would be appropriate to close the hearing and reschedule it and readvertise. C~ty Attorney L~ndberg stated it was permissible for the Commission to continue a hearing from time to time,' but not for a period of six months, which is unreasonable. He added that whatever draft comes out of the workshop meeting, copies should be given to all interested parties. Because this will be a controversial matter, the Commission, in all pro- babil~ty, will go through several drafts before it becomes final, and there is no need to readvertise this during this period of time. Director Warren suggested this matter be continued until the meeting of August 2, and in the meantime, the staff will try to schedule a workshop meeting. MSUC (Guyer-Comstock) Public hearing be continued until the meeting of August 2,1965. Member Comstock commented that the people in the audience who came to hear this discussion tonight - real estate people, etc., should have a copy of this draft and study it. Member Johnson suggested copies be mailed to architects. Member Comstock felt these people should come in and get them. City Attorney Lindberg asked that all interested parties having any comments pertaining to this ordinance should submit them to the staff so that it could be discussed at the meeting. Director Warren assured the Commission the drafts would be properly distributed. Staff Report on Sidewalks in Bonita Area Director of Planning Warren reviewed the situation stating that on Apr'il 5, 1965, the Commission granted the Helmuth Brothers a deferral of public improvements for their property south of Bonita Road and east of Allen School Road. The deferral was for 90 days so that the staff could make a study as to sidewalk need in the area. After visiting the area and meeting with the Engineering staff, it was the conclusion that all commercial sreas should have some form of sidewalk adjacent to the curb, and depending on the area, the width and type of sidewalk could be varied. In rural areas such as this one, where little pedestrian traffic is generated, the normal width of such sidewalks should be reduced. A problem arises where there is offstreet parking and a pedestrian has to step from his car into a planting area; the staff would recommend that some form of sidewalk be constructed here, a minimum of 3 feet wide, in back of the curb, and that the developer be allowed to vary from the requirement that concrete be used. Materials such as brick, adobe block, Spanish tile, etc., could be used for sidewalks throughout this area. Member Comstock questioned the use of asphalt. Mr. Lane Cole, City Engineer, remarked this would be less than desirable; that watering the landscaping will tend to saturate and deteriorate the asphalt. Mr. Cole cautioned, however, that if something other than concrete is used, the Code will have to be changed. C~ty Attorney Lindberg stated the Commission had granted a deferral, and that if they now waive the requirement, they could require a substitute; there would be no need to change the Code. Member Johnson questioned whether they were talking about one kind of material for all commercial areas; he felt a standard should be applied for this whole area. -10- Member Guyer suggested this problem be considered at the time the developers bring in their plans. Chairman Stevenson agreed, stating the Commission should approve the thought but not be specific about material. Member Comstock stated he disagreed with the staff; he felt it would ruin the character of Bonita if sidewalks were constructed there. The architectural setting would be lost; sidewalks were all right in front of stores but not out at the curb. Mr. Paul Stein, representing Helmuth Bros., declared he llke Bonita the way it was, partially because of the atmosphere of the area. Three months ago, at that meeting, the staff felt there was no need for a sidewalk. Mr. Stein added that the Commission has no new facts before them now that they didn't have 3 months ago. He talked to several of the property owners in the area - Dick Wilson, Gordon Pettit, Dr. O'Neill, and they claimed they like the area the way it is. This area has developed a particular architecture that sets it apart from other areas, and it would ruin it if sidewalks were now required. Chairman Stevenson questioned whether, in order not to have sidewalks here, the Commission must make a finding that putting in sidewalks would create a safety problem. City Attorney Lindberg asked that the Commission direct the staff to prepare an overall Bonita policy for adoption. This should include sidewalk where it is necesaary and desirable. Member Johnson commented this was the report they asked for a few months ago and which they now have. Director Warren remarked it was a matter of the Commission's accepting it or not. Mr. Lane Cole pointed out one other fact: that Bonita Road was no longer a rural road - it is a major thoroughfare and carries a great deal of traffic, which will continually increase. As this increases, emergencies also increase. If you do not' have an area provided for a person to step out into, he has to get out into the running traffic; three feet would be all that would be necessary. Member Comstock declared he disagreed with the idea that they need 3 feet. People would just not be parking at the curb. Director Warren co~r~ented that as long as stores are near the curb, there is always that need. Member Adams said he would like to express himself as being in agreement with the staff's advice. He would go along with having a narrow sidewalk next to the curb. Chairman Stevenson remarked that the Commission has contributed to the need for side- walks having the apartments in the area. MSC (dohnson-Adams) Approval of staff report for sidewalk requirement in Bonita commercial areas. Member Comstock voted in oppositi~. Discussion - Director Warren indicated that if it was the feeling of the Commission that something other than concrete be used, they should waive the requirement for sidewalk with the condition that something other be used; however, they shouldn't attempt to stipulate the type of material tonight. MSC (Guyer-Comstock) Recommend that some form of sidewalk be constructed adjacent to the curb in all commercial areas. Acceptance of suggestion that something other than concrete be permitted in the Bonita area and that a minimum width of three feet be allowed. Approval of waiver of sidewalk requirement with the condition that a walkway as described above, the type subject to staff approval, be constructed, other- -11- wise, the typical sidewalk required by Code to be installed. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Guyer, Johnson, Stevenson and Adams NOES: Member Comstock ABSENT: Member Stewart Discussion - Proposed Underground Utility Ordinance After discussion, the Commission concurred this item should be held over to a workshop meeting and set for hearing for the first meeting in August. RESOLUTION NO. 363 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Stating Their MSUC (Comstock-Johnson) Intent to Call a Public Hearing for August 2, 1965, For the Purpose of Amending Chapter 28 of the Chula Vista City Code by Adding Thereto a New Section 28.6.1 Relating to the Undergrounding of Utility Facilities Discussion - Request to Change Name of "l" Street Director of Planning Warren reviewed the situation, stating this was referred to the staff by the City Council at their meeting of January 26, 1965. A petition was sub- mitted to them by Mr. Lucien Bryan, 50 East "l" Street requesting the name of this street be changed. The staff, subsequently, mailed out a brief questionn~re to each property owner on this street; 198 cards were mailed of which 131 were returned. Approximately 65 replied "yes", 45 replied "no~ and 21 replied "l don't care." Most of the suggestions for a name change were to the word "Eye". The staff feels that the problem here is one of penmanship and partially that of the Post Office, since the residents claim their main problem is getting their mail. Since the letter 'lI't is part of the Citywide street namlng system, the staff would recommend that a report be sent to the Council requesting that the name not be changed, and that the Council advise both the residents of this street and the Post Office to be more aware of their penmanship and in sorting the distribution of the mail. Chairman Stevenson questioned the cost in changing street signs. Mr. Cole, City Engineer, stated it ~uld probably be less than $500. Member Comstock indicated the same problem might exist on "L" and "J" Streets. Mr. Lucien Bryan, spokesman for the residents on "l" Street, stated he was the one that circulated the petition, and did so chiefly because of the mailing problems. He added he also felt the questionnaire should have been sent to the renters on the street also. Member Comstock agreed it was the penmanship that was at fault here, and was against changing the name of one street to suit one group. If the Commission recommends this name change, they should do so for "L" and "J" Streets also. He added the City would have to bear the cost of this, unless there was some way the residents could reimburse the City for the cost. MSUC (Comstock-Guyer) Recommend to the City Council that the existing street name be retained, since it is part of the alphabetical system of street names in the City. If, at any time, the City Council deems it advisable to change this street name, then the Commission asks that consideration be given to renaming all the alphabetical street names in the City at the same time, and that any costs involved be borne by the -12- residents of said streets. Discussion - Concernin.~. Request to Rezone Prop. erty in Count~ Director of Planning Warren stated that the staff received a notice from the County a few weeks ago of the proposed change of zone from R-2-A to multiple-family zoning for property located south of "L" Street on Fourth Avenue. The General Plan adopted last September covers the area outside the City line, and since that time, whenever a notice is sent from the County for a rezoning that is contrary to our Plan, the staff files a letter of protest with the County. The staff, in this case, sent a letter to the County; however, a representative of the residents on the street has asked the staff to appear at the hearing, in person, to state the City's protest. Since this rezoning is in the County, the staff would prefer to attend this hearing only at the direction of the Commission. Member Adams said he was in favor of it; that the Commission should at all times protest any County rezoning that conflicts with our General Plan. Mr. J. D. Peters, real estate broker, spoke in favor of the rezoning, stating the area encompasses approximately 22 acres. The County has a provision for two units on 4000 square feet of land now, and this will be a much better development. Director Warren reiterated the General Plan calls for single-family residential in this area. Member Comstock declared the staff should not have to pursue this any further, as long as it is on record that the City protests this rezoning. Member Adams stated that based on the discussion just held, he would withdraw his first comment. MSUC (Comstock-Guyer) No further action be taken on this matter, since the staff has already sent a letter of protest to the County stating the rezoning was con- trary to the general Plan and not in conformance with the City's plans for that a rea. YH" Street Nursery School A letter was read from Mrs. Marvin Miller stating her intention to purchase the 'IH" Street Nursery School, 194 "H" Street providing she can get a variance on the property for a long period of time. She requested the Commission's advice on the matter. Member Adams commented that the Commission had received a previous request for a permanent variance for this Nursery School, and that he is against it, as the School can change hands and the Commission would lose all control over it. Chairman Stevenson felt Mrs. Miller should make an application and in this way, it would give the Commission a chance to get the neighbor's feelings on the matter. Church of Christ Request Director of Planning Warren informed the Commission of a letter on file from the Church of Christ, 231 Fourth Avenue, requesting the Commission's feelings on their proposal to expand their auditorium and class room facilities. Member Comstock remarked the staff should advise them to apply for a conditional use permit. -13- City Attorney Lindberg stated he objects to having the Planning Commission give an opinion without holding a public hearing. Director Warren stated he had advised the applicant of this, but that he preferred to submit this letter. No action was taken on the matter. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Comstock-Johnson) Meeting adjourn to July 14, 1965, at 7 P.M. in the Administrative Conference Room. Respectfully submitted, 'Jennie M. Fulasz Secretary