HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1980/08/27 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, August 27, 1980 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of August 13, 1980
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
1. Consideration of request for extension of time for tentative subdivision
map of Villa San Miguel
2. Consideration of final EIR-80-2A for development of Hilltop Courts
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-80-E - Request to rezone 7.78 acres on the east side of
Nacion Avenue, north of Telegraph Canyon Road, from R-1 to
R-3-P-23 - Dale Building Company
4. Consideration of request for modification of precise plan relating to
fence design and location in Vista De Otay subdivision
5. PUBLIC HEARING: Tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Tract 80-31,
Gateway Townhouses, between Bonita Road and 1-805,
construction of 205 unit condominium project
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMENTS
To: City Planning Commission
From: D.J. Peterson, Director of Planning
Subject: Staff report on agenda items for Planning Commission
Meeting of August 27, 1980
1. Consideration of request for extension of time for tentative subdivision map of Villa San Mi~uel
A. BACKGROUND
1. On March 27, 1979 the City Council approved the tentative subdivision map
for Villa San Miguel, Chula Vista Tract 79-15, authorizing the division of 10.9
acres located at 357 Hilltop Drive into 19 single family residential lots and one
common lot. The subject property is located 630 feet east of Hilltop Drive with
a 50 foot wide panhandle access drive extending to Hilltop Drive and is zoned
R-E-PUD.
2. The tentative map is due to expire on September 27, 1980. The map is
presently in the final map process and while it is anticipated that the final map
will be recorded before the tentative map expires, the applicant is requesting
a one year extension in the event the map is not completed by that date.
B. RECO~qENDATION
Adopt a motion to approve the request for a one year extension, to September 27,
1981, of the tentative subdivision map for Villa San Miguel, Chula Vista Tract 79-15.
C. DISCUSSION
There have been no significant physical chan§es in the immediate vicinity which affect
the original conditions or finding of approval. Therefore, the approval of an
extension of time is appropriate.
ROAD
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 27, 1980 Page 2
2. Consideration of final EIR-80-2A for development of Hilltop Courts
A. BACKGROUND
1. The public hearing on the draft of this environmental impact report was
held on August 13, 1980. At that time substantial comments were presented and
written comments were received from the Environmental Control Commission. Several
specific issues were identified and the general concept of expanding the analysis
to identify significant cumulative impacts was raised. These have been responded
to and where appropriate changes in the text have been made. The criterion for
a revision to the text was a high potential for a substantial cumulative long term
impact.
2. All written comments and a transcript of relevant testimony from the
public hearing have been incorporated in Sec. 8.0 of the final EIR and a response
is provided in Sec. 9.0.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Certify that EIR-80-2A has been prepared in compliance with CEQA and the Environ-
mental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and that the Planning Co, is-
sion has reviewed and considered the information in the EIR as it reaches a
decision on the project.
C. ANALYSIS
1. Cumulative impact.
One of the basic concepts contained in the comments on the draft EIR involved
the issue of cumulative impacts. When dealing with this issue some basic standards
have been established by the courts. Any analysis of cumulative impacts must be
guided by: practicality, reasonableness and feasibility. Within these parameters
the report should identify the project impacts and the anticipated impacts of
related or foreseeable future projects. The EIR should then determine if the
cumulative impact would be significant. These future projects usually involve
development over many years. The accuracy of any long range projections, such as
these, becomes more questionable as the time frame is extended and the analysis
then becomes more problematic.
2. Several issues regarding specifics in the acoustical analysis were
raised. These were found to be incorrect or have been explained by an expanded
explanation in Sec. 9.0 of the final EIR. The acoustical section is correct or
is overly conservative.
3. The petttions filed pri~r to the EIR hearing were more §ermane to the hearing
on the zone change. They have been referenced in the EIR but will be presented
to the City Council as part of the zone chan9e question.
4. During the public hearing questions regarding coordination between the
school districts and the City were raised. The Planning Department staff meets
with the staff of the school districts on a very regular basis and continually
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 27, 1980 Page 3
informs them of development activities. During large scale planning efforts,
such as E1 Rancho del Rey, the school districts are involved from the onset.
When a tentative subdivision map, sectional area plan, or other similar develop-
ment proposals are filed with the City, the school districts are sent copies
and comments are requested. The City Council has met and scheduled future
meetings with the districts' boards of directors regarding basic policy matters.
The basic question of school capacities and the provision of educational ser-
vices can only be answered by the school districts. The City must depend on the
school districts to provide a professional judgment regarding the adequacy of
educational services. To this date the school districts have found that they
have been able to reach agreements with the developers which have allowed them
to inform the City that they can provide adequate educational services and the
City has very little basis for questioning this conclusion by the districts.
D. CONCLUSION
The basic premises of the analysis in the EIR remains unchanged from the draft.
The two major changes are the deletion of the one-half acre C-N zoned property
from the request and the addition of the cumulative school impact analysis.
Other cumulative aspects are discussed in Sec. 9.0 because the analysis concluded
an insignificant impact or the analysis was so questionable and over such a long
period of time that inclusion in the "basic text" was not appropriate.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 27, 1980 Page 4
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-80-E - Request to rezone 7.78 acres on the east side of
Nacion Avenue, north of Telegraph Canyon Road~ from R-1 to
R-3-P-23 - Dale Buildin9 Company
A. BACKGROUND
1. The applicant, Dale Building Company, is requesting a change of zone for
7.78 acres of property located on the east side of Nacion Avenue, north of Telegraph
Canyon Road and adjacent to the 1-805 freeway, from R-1 (single family residential)
to R-3-P-23 (multiple family, 23 units per acre subject to a precise plan).
2. The environmental impact report, EIR-80-2A on this project is the preceding
agenda item.
3. The subject property has a rather long and complicated history. The site
was approved for rezoning from R-1 to C-V-P in 1970. However, the zoning was not
to become effective until such time as a precise plan was filed. Since a plan has
never been filed, the site presently remains R-1. In addition, the City Council
recently amended the General Plan establishing a density range of 13-26 dwelling
units per acre for the 7.78 acre site (101-202 units).
B. RECOMMENDATION
Based on good zoning practice and conformance with the General Plan density and
the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion recommending
that the City Council enact an ordinance for a change of zone for 7.78 acres as
shown on Exhibit "A" from R-1 to R-3-P-15, subject to the following precise plan
guidelines:
1. The buildings closest to the Nacion frontage shall be limited to single
story or 15 feet in height. One story portions of buildings shall be
located at least 15 feet from the front property line, two story portions
must be at least 30 feet back, and three story portions shall be at
least 60 feet back.
2. The driveways shall be aligned opposite the streets which connect to
Nacion Avenue. In addition, one driveway shall be allowed north of Corte
Nacion.
3. The Design Review Committee shall review the applicant's plans from the
standpoint of making the development as compatible as possible with the
nearby single family areas. If the applicant revises his plan substan-
tially to the detriment of the objective of compatibility, the Design
Review Committee may limit the density to less than 15 units per net acre.
C. DISCUSSION
1. Adjacent zoning and land use:
North R-1 Single family dwellings
South C-N Retail commercial
East - 1-805 freeway
West R-1-P Single family dwellings
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 27, 1980 Page 5
2. Existing site characteristics.
The subject property is a vacant parcel which has been previously graded
(borrow pit). The grading has resulted in the property sloping gently from
north to south with the exception of 2:1 slopes located along portions of the
northerly property line, as well as the 30 foot high berm located on the eastern
side of the lot. An improved open drainage channel extends across the full width
of the southerly portion of the property. The westerly 173 feet of the channel
is a covered box culvert. The drainage easement is 60 feet wide adjacent to the
freeway narrowing slightly to 50 feet at Nacion Avenue. The channel itself
takes up approximately 45 feet of the easement and is fenced by a chainlink fence.
3. Acreage breakdown.
The subject property contains 7.78 net acres with its gross acreage calculated
at 8.32 acres (computing to the center line of Nacion Avenue). The existing 2:1
slopes and the drainage channel take up approximately 2.21 acres (the area outside
the fence and covered section of the channel may be calculated for open space),
leaving approximately 5.57 acres of net usable land.
4. General Plan.
In February 1980, the City Council approved an amendment to the General Plan
changing the land use designation on the subject property from Visitor Comn~rcial
to High Density Residential, 13 to 26 dwelling units per gross acre. The Planning
Commission had recommended a land use designation of Medium Density Residential,
4 to 12 dwelling units per gross acre. The residents in the immediate area expressed
considerable opposition to the High Density Residential classification.
5. Proposed development.
The applicant has submitted a site plan and elevations depicting the project
at a density of 23 dwelling units per acre. The project has not been submitted
to the Design Review Committee as that review should await a determination of the
zoning so that the permitted density is known.
The applicant's plan proposes 171 units consisting of two and three story
structures with the majority of the buildings being three story. Both the two
and three story buildings would set back a minimum of 30 feet from Nacion Avenue.
Because the buildings are not parallel to the street, the front yard setbacks are
variable with portions of the building near the southerly end of the site setting
back 60 feet from the street.
6. The Environmental Control Commission, in its review of the project, was
of the opinion that the development was incompatible with the adjoining single
family development. In additio,, the resulting increase in traffic, while still
easily within the capability of the streets to accommodate, would be a "degradation
of the quality of life for existing residents adjacent to and utilizing this street
system." Because of these considerations, the Environment Control Conlnission con-
cluded that the proposed density should be at the lower end of the range permitted
by the General Plan.
City Planning Co~mission
Agenda Items for Meetin§ of August 27, 1980 Page 6
D. ANALYSIS
1. As mentioned earlier in this report, the subject property has a net area
of 7.78 acres. However, once the area of the slopes and drainage (2.21 acres)
is subtracted from the net acreage, the property is reduced to a usable area of
5.57 acres. The 171 units proposed on the property would result in a density of
approximately 22 units per net acre (171 e 7.78) and a density of approximately
31 units per acre on the net usable area. The gross density using the center line
of Nacion would be slightly more than 20 units per acre (171 ~ 8.32). In order
to achieve the proposed density, the majority of the buildings are proposed to
be three stories in height.
2. In staff's judgment a multiple family development on this site can be
made most compatible with the adjacent single family areas by the development of
a plan in which the Nacion frontage is entirely single story, with two and perhaps
three story buildings toward the center and easterly portions of the property.
3. It has been staff's experience that the building intensity and relation-
ship between open space, buildings and parking, which results from a density
of 17-20 DU/net usable acre is reasonably compatible with single family areas.
That is not to say that residents of such single family areas willingly accept
this density, but from an overall building massing perspective such a development,
if provided with adequate setbacks, does ,Jot overwhelm a single family area.
4. The preceding paragraph notwithstanding, there are other factors besides
density which determine the compatibility of a multiple family development with
an adjacent single family area. These factors are:
a. Size of the multiple family dwellings;
b. Architectural treatment;
c. Offstreet parking arrangement.
Should the applicant elect to enlarge the units and provide parking within
garages or carports attached to each unit, a density of 17-20 DU/acre would be
crowded. Staff's recommendation for density and setbacks is based on the type
of layout reflected in the applicant's plan. A change in that plan may bring
about the need to make changes in the density. Recommended condition of approval
No. 5 addresses this problem.
E. FINDINGS FOR ATTACHING THE "P" ZONE
Sec. 19.56.041 provides that the "P" modifying district may be applied to areas
within the city only when one or more of the following circumstances is evident:
1. The property or area to which the P modifying district is
applied is an area a~'acent an~ contiguous to a zone allowing different land uses,
and the development of a precise plan will allow the area so designated to coexist
between land usages which might otherwise prove inco~oatible.
The attachment of the "P" modifying district will regulate the density of the
property to be developed at a range which will be compatible with the neigh-
boring single family area.
£ity ~lannin9 Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 27, 1980 Page 7
2. The basic or underlying zone regulations do not allow the property owner
and/or the city appropriate control or flexibility needed to achieve an efficient
and proper relationship a~ong the uses allowed in the a~acent zones.
The recommended special building setbacks and height limitation will result
in development which is compatible with the adjoining residential uses.
UNDER . CONST) ~
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 27, 1980 Page 8
Consideration of request for modification of precise plan relatin9 t¢~
fence desiQn and location in Vista De Ota~ subdivision
A. BACKGROUND
1. This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of July 23,
1980 at the request of the Vista De Otay Homeowners Association.
2. In May, 1978 the Planning Commission approved a precise plan for the
construction of a 50 unit condominium project (Vista De Otay) at 1720 Melrose
Avenue.
3. Later, upon completion of the project, the Planning Department noted the
existence of a chainlink fence which was not installed in accordance with the
approved precise plan. On May 19, 1980 the Department sent a letter to the Vista
De Otay Home Owners Association advising that the chainlink fence was illegally
installed in a designated common open space area.
4. On June 18, 1980 the Planning Department received a letter from the
president of the home owners association, now identified as Melrose Park, request-
ing a modification to the approved precise plan, PCM-78-23, seeking permission to
retain the fence in its presently installed location (see exhibit Al.
5. The proposed project is exempt from environmental review as a class 3(el
exemption.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a motion to deny the request and to allow for the installation of a decorative
wall, fence, or combination thereof, to be located at the top of the westerly slope,
subject to staff approval.
Note: Gates may be installed to provide addess to the open space and the chainlink
fence located on the north and south property lines not within the swale area may
remain.
C. DISCUSSION
l. The westerly property line of the project is located between the bottom of
a swale and the top of a slope which forms an integral part of a larger grassed
open space area common to the adjacent Playmor condominium development (Rancho Rios).
A 5 foot high chainlink fence has been installed on the westerly portion of the
north and south property lines extending along the full length of the westerly
property line. That portion of the fence located on the grass swale area disrupts
both the physical and visual continuity of the open space common to this project
and the adjoining Playmor development.
2. The applicant has indicated that the fence company that installed the fence
made inquiries to the City as to whether or not a permit was required, and when
informed that a permit was not required they proceeded with the installation. The
applicant has stated that neither the fence company nor the association was aware
that the site plan approval by the Planning Department, based on the precise plan,
was still necessary. The Building Department has assured the Planning staff that
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 27, 1980 Page 9
all inquiries regarding fencing approval are referred to the Planning Department
for clearance. Since the elimination of fence permits approximately one year ago,
violations of zoning regulations regarding fence construction have been on the
increase, although the previous permit process did very little to enforce compliance
with City regulations. ·
3. The primary reason the fence was installed stems from the fact that residents
of the project were facing vandalism, burglaries and litter, largely attributed to
the direct open access to the common open space area to the west. In addition, the
project was subject to foot traffic from the adjacent residential area using the
development as a shortcut to reach adjoining commercial areas.
D. ANALYSIS
1. On August 12th the staff met with representatives from the homeowners
association to discuss alternati¥~solutions to the staff recommendation of installing
a decorative wall, fence, or combination of the two at the top of the westerly slope.
The options discussed were:
a. Leave the chainlink fence at its present location and apply a park green
or black paint to allow the fence to better blend with the grass area.
Note: The association noted that the fenced grass area offers an added
play area for children within their complex.
b. Move the chainlink fence near the top of the slope and paint, so as to
salvage the present investment in material.
c. Remove the chainlink fence and locate a new decorative wrought iron
fence near the top of the slope.
Alternate "b" represents a compromise which solves the encroachment problem while
only partically addressing the question of aesthetics. Alternate "a" is a somewhat
superficial attempt to solve the stark appearance of the present chainlink fence.
The staff can sympathize with the residents of the condominium development in
wanting to provide as much protection and privacy as possible for the development,
however, it is staff's opinion that this can be achieved by utilizing option "c"
which provides for the installation of a decorative open fence (wrought iron or a
combination of iron and concrete block) located at the top of the slope, thus
avoiding encroachment into the common open space. Locked gates should be provided
to allow for the maintenance of the slope areas lying westerly of the proposed
security fence.
2. The staff contacted the original developer of this project who submitted
the site plan and architectural drawings in conjunction with the approved precise
plan, and although the developer is no longer involved in the project, he did
indicate that he provided certain financial assistance to the home owners associa-
tion to allow for the fence to be installed. It is unfortunate that neither the
fence company nor the developer advised the home owners association that a modifica-
tion to the approved precise plan would be necessary before the fence could be
installed.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 27, 1980 Page l0
3. While the staff has little reason to doubt that the residents of the
area were experiencing problems serious enough to warrant the installation of
the fence, it should be pointed out that the adjoining Playmor development which
has more units and a much larger area abutting the common open space, has retained
open access to the open space area.
4. The adjoining Playmor subdivision is divided into two separate home owners
associations. Also, there are a number of separate lot lines which traverse the
common open area since the original Playmor development was constructed in six or
seven phases. If the City were not involved in the review and design of proposed
fencing installations it is conceivable that the entire open space area could be
divided into a series of smaller increments which would totally disrupt the physical
and visual flow of the open space. Therefore, the staff feels it is extremely
important to be involved and closely monitor any proposed fencing plan for this type
of development.
RANCHO
CITY OF SAN DIEGO
LEGEND
~NOm'H
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 27, 1980 Page ll
PUBLIC HEARING: Tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Tract 80-31,
Gateway Townhouses, between Bonita Road and 1-805,
construction of 205 unit condominium project
A. BACKGROUND
l. The applicant is seeking approval of a tentative subdivision map known
as Gateway Townhouses, Chula Vista Tract 80-31, for the development of a 205 unit
townhouse condominium project on two lots located on both sides of the 100 block
of East Flower Street between Bonita Road and 1-805 in the R-3-P-13 zone.
2. In March 1977 the Planning Commission adopted the Environmental Impact
Report, EIR-76-11, for the Morgan-Gardner subdivision which anticipated the
construction of 217 dwelling units on the subject property. The proposed project
contains 205 units or 12 fewer than originally anticipated.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt a motion certifying EIR-76-11.
2. Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a
motion recommending that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map
for Gateway Townhouses, Chula Vista Tract 80-31, subject to the following condi-
tions:
a. Flower Street shall be named East Flower Street.
b. The applicant shall offer 3% of his units (6 units) for sale or rent
at rates affordable by families earning no more than $17,700/year.
If such housing is offered for sale, provisions satisfactory to the
City Attorney shall be made to regulate resale so as to avoid windfall
profit taking. In lieu of the provisions of such housing on site, the
applicant may make a payment equivalent to 3% of the market value of
the project, such payment to be deposited into a fund designated for
the purpose of providing low and moderate income housing. Alternatively,
such housing may be provided in another location approved by the City
Council.
c. The project shall comply with the following conditions imposed by
the Design Review Committee:
l) The small retaining walls indicated throughout the project may
be set back from the curb line if deemed advisable by the
Landscape Architect.
2) The low retaining walls shall also be removed at the rear of the
auto-court areas (where feasible) and landscaping installed.
3) 42" high wood rail fencing shall be used throughout the develop-
ment for low level safety fencing.
4) The freestanding block wall along Bonita Road, the trash enclosures,
and the retaining walls throughout the development shall be
constructed of matching materials and colors.
City Planning Commission Page 12
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 27, 1980
5) The exact pattern, color and location of textured paving shall
be approved by the City's Landscape Architect prior to issuance
of building permits.
6) An effort shall be made by the developer to discourage public
access onto the private loop streets through textured paving,
low level signs and some other means of vi'sual identification,
such as walls.
7) A textured material should be used on the access easement and
fire access way found within the easterly phase of the develop-
ment. Location and material shall be coordinated with the Fire
Department and the City's Landscape Architect.
8. Landscape pockets or planters shall be incorporated within the
parking courts. In addition, the landscaping plan should
incorporate specimen materials for the building areas facing
"E" Street.
9) Additional pedestrian walkways shall be installed to serve all
areas of the complex. The location shall be verified by the
Planning Department.
10) Additional offsets or trim shall be incorporated on exterior
walls facing the parking courts.
11) The two cabanas proposed for the pool areas shall utilize similar
colors and materials to match the complex decor.
12) Interior noise levels for all units shall be assured at a
maximum of 45 dBA.
d. The project shall comply with the following conditions imposed by
the Engineering Department:
l) The map shall be revised to add the typical section for interior
streets cross slope of 2%.
2) The developer shall provide for sight distance of 250 feet from
the proposed driverwy south of manhold #15 south towards "E" Street.
Landscaping should be low growing.
3) The minimum width of minor private circulation system streets
shall be 20 feet between curbs. Major private circulation system
streets should be 24 feet between curbs and private access drives
to parking areas or §arages shall be at least 20 feet. Parallel
walls shall be located at least 2 feet behind curb lines.
4) The minimum centerline radius for private circulation system
streets shall be 65 feet. Centerline radii access of drives to
specific parking areas as shown on the submitted tentative map
shall be approved by the City Engineer.
City Planning Con~nission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 27, 1980 Page 13
5) Stopping sight distance for private streets shall be based on
a minimum of 15 mph.
6) The entire storm drain system, including location and size of all
facilities, shall be approved by the City Engineer as part of the
final grading and improvement plans.
a) Surface drainage shall not flow directly onto the road
surface. Provisions shall be made to prevent undermining
of the roadway.
b) Surface drainage shall not be allowed to flow over slopes.
7) All residential pads shall be one foot above the 100 year storm
level.
8) The developer shall submit retaining wall details as part of the
grading plans.
9) The developer shall install private street lights on private
streets. The location, type and material shall be subject to
approval by the Traffic Engineer.
10) All improvements required along easements granted to the City of
Chula Vista with Subdivision Map 8989 shall be installed or alter-
nate easements through private streets shall be granted.
ll) The entrances to the development from Flower Street between
Stations 27 + 20 to 27 + 40 shall be aligned opposite each other
rather than at a slight offset.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 27, 1980 Page 14
C. DISCUSSION
1. Existing site characteristics.
The subject property consists of lots 57 (southerly} and 58 (northerly) of
the Morgan Gardner subdivision which have been graded and are vacant except for
a grove of eucalyptus trees at the west end of lot 57. Lot 57 contains 9.04
acres and lot 58 has 8.56 acres.
2. Previously proposed development.
In March, 1978 a precise plan (PCM-78-16) was approved for 217 apartment
units on the two lots. The development consisted of 104 units in six buildings
on the northerly lot and ll3 units in 9 buildings on the southerly lot. The
structures, of Spanish design, were a combination of one and two story buildings.
The parking was located in large groupings near the buildings and consisted of a
combination of carports and open spaces.
3. Proposed project.
a. The developer nas abandoned his original development plans and is now
proposing to construct a condominium project consisting of three story townhouse
units. The structures will appear as two story from the front entry because the
ground level of each pad will be raised around the units to allow for a lower level
area devoted to one and two car garages. The units are connected by balconies which
span portions of the driveway between the garages.
b. Lot 1 (formerly lot 58) will have lOl units contained in 14 buildings
ranging from 6 units to ll units. Lot 2 {formerly lot 57) will have 104 units
located in 9 buildings ranging from 8 units to 12 units.
c. There will be four basic unit types as follows:
Type Bedrooms Lot 1 Lot 2 Total Garage Storage* Private Open Space
A 1 14 22 36 36 (1 car) 200 c.f. 195 s.f. (13'xl5')
8 2 35 43 78 156 (2 car) 200 c.f. 142 s.f. (7.5'x19'}
C 2 24 9 33 66 {2 car) 200 c.f. 195 s.f. {13'xl5')
D 2 + den 28 30 58 ll6 {2 car) 200 c.f. 157 s.f. (7.5'x9' & 9'xlO')
lO1 104 2O5 ~
*located in the garage
d. Parking spaces are %rovided as follows:
Garage Open Total Required Excess
Lot 1 188 54 242 145 97
Lot 2 186 28 214 161 53
City Planning Commission Page 15
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 27, 1980
4. Circulation.
Access to the units will be provided by a private street system. There will
be three private streets serving lot 1 and two serving lot 2. The main road on
lot 2 will be a loop street with short access roads leading to the units. Lot 1
will not have a loop street; however, an emergency fire lane will be provided
between the two main roads for fire apparatus. In order to avoid any possible
confusion concerning whether the streets are public or private, the developer
proposes to treat each entry with columns and walls with signs attached indicating
"private street." Consideration was given to providing card actuated gates,
however, this would render the guest parking almost useless and force guests to
park a substantial distance from each unit on East Flower Street. The Planning
Department supports the proposed circulation system.
5. Design review.
On August 7, 1980 the Design Review Committee conditionally approved the
design and architecture of the proposed project, subject to several conditions
which deal with refinement of details on retaining walls, landscaping, pedestrian
walks, and textured paving. The architecture is of contemporary design consisting
of a stucco exterior, wood trim and shake shingle roofs; it was approved subject
to the provision of offsets on a portion of the building facing the auto court
areas.
D. ANALYSIS
The proposed project meets or exceeds the minimum requirements of the code
regarding storage, parking and open space and has been conditionally approved by
the Design Review Committee. The treatment of the entries into the project and
the proposed signs denoting "private street" will clearly identify the street
system as private.
E, FINDINGS
Pursuant to Sections 66473.5 and 66412.2 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative
subdivision map for Gateway Townhouses, Chula Vista Tract 80-31, is recommended
for approval based on the following findings:
1. The site is physically suitable for residential development and the
proposed development conforms to all standards established by the City
for such project.
2. The design of the subdivision will not affect the existing improvements:
streets, sewer, etc., which have been designed to avoid any serious health
problems.
3. Approval of the project will not adversely affect the public service needs
of residents of the City or available fiscal and environmental resources.
4. The subdivision is consistent with the General Plan as follows:
a. The construction of condominiums within the R-3 zone in an area which
has recently been subdivided and improved does not affect the follow-
ing elements of the General Plan: Land Use, Circulation, Seismic
Safety, Safety, Noise, Scenic Highways, Bicycle Routes, Public Buildings,
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 27, 1980 Page 16
Conservation, Parks and Recreation and Open Space.
b. Housing Element - The construction of condominium units will
provide additional housing for the residents of the community.
Va¢ Church
Hofel
' I Offic~