Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1982/01/27 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, January 27, 1982 - 5:00 p.m. Conference Rooms 2 & 3 1. Consideration of extension of time on tentative subdivision map for Kimball Terrace, Chula Vista Tract 79-17, 80 Third Avenue (see enclosed report) 2. Discussion of cost of maintaining open space in Open Space Maintenance Districts (information to be provided at the meeting) 3. Discussion of Commission procedure in acting on a negative declaration prior to denial of an application 4. Report on the provision of restrooms in mini-mart conversion of Arco station at 720 "H" Street 5. Discussion of League of California Cities Institute for Planning Commissioners to be held in San Diego, February 24-26 6. Discussion of revised standards for private schools (see enclosed memo) To: City Planning Commission From: D.J. Peterson, Director of Planning Subject: Staff report on agenda items for Planning Commission Meeting of January 27, 1982 1. Consideration of request for extension of time on tentative subdivision map for Kimball Terrace, Chula Vista Tract 79-17, 80 Third Avenue A. BACKGROUND 1. On August 7, 1979 the City Council approved the tentative subdivision map for Kimball Terrace, Chula Vista Tract 79-17, for the development of a five unit condominium project on a 0.47 acre parcel located at the northwest corner of Kimball Terrace and Third Avenue in the R-3-P-12 zone. 2. On January 14, 1981 the Planning Commission approved a one year extension of the tentative subdivision map. The map is due to expire on February 7, 1982. The property has been acquired by a new owner who, on December 28, 1981, requested another one year extension of the tentative map. The State Map Act allows extensions of the tentative map not to exceed two years (Section 66452.6). B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion to approve an extension of the tentative subdivision map for Kimball Terrace, Chula Vista Tract 79-17, for a period of one year. The tentative map would then expire on February 7, 1983 with no further extensions possible. C. DISCUSSION There have been no significant physical changes in the immediate vicinity which affect the original conditions or findings of approval. Therefore, the approval of an additional extension of time is appropriate. January 15, 1982 To: D.J. Peterson, Director of Planning From: Daniel M. Pass, AICP Senior Planner~ Steve Griffin, AICP Associate Planner Subject: Revised draft Private School Site Planning Standards A. BACKGROUND 1. Pursuant to your recent instructions, the Advance Planning Division has prepared revised private nursery school and private elementary school standards, which are embodied in the "Design Standards" section of this report. The Division, during the course of this preparation utilized the standards and criteria suggested by several authoritative works of city planners, townscape planners, landscape architects, and professional recreators. The attached bibliography credits these sources. 2. Special mention must be made of the services rendered by Robert W. Sennett, the City Landscape Architect, who provided much information and guidance. Mr. Sennett, over a period of twelve years, participated in the planning and replanning of more than 200 school campuses. B. Design Standards for the site planning of Private Nursery and Elementary Schools (kindergarten through 6th grade) 1. Nursery Schools a. Students per acre (maximum) 60 b. Students per classroom (maximum) 15 c. Building floor area (minimum)/classroom 1,000 sq. ft. d. Play area/150 students 1.85 ac. e. Basic allocation of play areas (1) Turf - 75% (2) Hardscape, courts, walks - 15% (3) Untreated areas (sand, dirt, equipment) - 10% fo Area of 150 student nursery school 2.5 ac. g. Off-street parking 1.0 space/2 classrooms Notes: The above site-planning standards for nursery schools were developed, to a very limited extent, from information secured from external sources. The Advance Planning Division found very little authority on the subject, and therefore was required to develop in-office criteria. The suggested 2.5 acre site for a 10-classroom school would accon~odate the classroom building, play area, landscape areas, and off-street parking area. 2. Elementary Schools (K through 6) a. Students per acre (maximum) 85 b. Students per classroom (maximum) 30 c. Building floor area (minimum)/classroom 1,000 sq. ft. d. Play area/300 students 2.00 ac. e. Basic allocation of play areas: . Page 2 ' (1) Turf - 3u% (2) Hardscape, courts, walks - 50% (3) Untreated areas (sand, dirt, equipment) - 20% f. Area of the site of a 300 student elementary school 3.7 ac. g. Off-street parking (minimum) 1.0 space/classroom + 3 spaces Notes: In California, a standard site for a two-unit, 500 student elementary school is ten acres. It is predicated upon the formula of "five acres per elementary school, plus one acre per each 100 students." The California density standard is supported by the authors of authoritative American urban planning texts, including Chapin, Eisner, Koppelmann, and Nez. Prior to 1959, the Ministry of Education of Great Britain mandated the California density standard. Its sub- sequent reduction has been almost universally attacked by British town and country planners, and by the leading British planning theorist, Lewis Keeble. The California standard primarily governs public schools, but there is sound argument for application to private elementary schools. The recreational and educational space needs of children remain constant, notwithstanding the owner- ship of the elementary school. Despite the consonancy of public-private spatial needs noted in the above para- graph, the Planning Department has found that most local private elementary schools are situated on small sites, and do not substantially meet the California density standard.* Furthermore, it must be recognized that smaller private school sites are, to an appreciable extent, both supportable and necessary. Private schools tend to stress traditional teaching methods and classical curricula, and do not sponsor extensive outdoor-recreation or athletic programs. It must also be recognized that private elementary schools are often confronted by very limited capital and operational budgets, and cannot afford the purchase and maintenance of large sites. The elementary school standards recommended in this report are predicated upon the Planning Department's attempt to conciliate the excellent and commodious California standard, employed by public schools, and the tight, spatial criteria which are often used by private elementary schools. The Department's proposed standards would suggest that private elementary school sites provide about 60% of the area of the sites prescribed under the California standard. The suggested 3.7 acre site for a 10 classroom school would accommodate the classroom building, play area, landscape areas, and off-street parking area. C. CONCLUSION The proposed site planning standards are designed to provide the Planning Commission, City Council, city staff and developers guidelines for the siting and establishment of private nursery and elementary schools in Chula Vista. These standards, under certain circumstances, could be varied, and therefore should not be regarded as firm regulations. While the proposed standards are important, they do not reduce the need for comprehensive preplanning or "master planning" in conjunction with proposed or expanded school sites. * Site Evaluation of Four Private Schools Required Site Area/ Elementary School Area of Site No. of Students Draft Standards Pilgrim Lutheran 0.7 Ac. 112 2.5 Ac. St, Pius X 3.2 Ac. 255 5.7 Ac. St. Rose of Lima 2.3 Ac. 226 5.0 Ac. S.D. Hebrew Day School 1.9 Ac. 202 5.0 Ac. DMP:hm Bibliography Chapin, F. Stuart, Jr., Urban Land Use Planning. Urbana, 1963. University of Illinois Press. District Standards, A Guide for School Construction. San Diego: 1976. San Diego Unified School District. De Chiara and Koppelman, Plannin§ Desi§n Criteria. New York: 1969. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. Englehardt, N., Complete Guide for Plannin~ New Schools. Inglewood Cliffs, N. J.: 1970. Parker Publishing Company, Inc. Gallion and Eisner, The Urban Pattern, City Plannin~ and Design, 3rd Ed., New York: 1975. D. Van Nostrand Company Keeble, Lewis, Principles and Practice of Town and Country Planning, 4th Edition. London: 1972. The Estates Gazette Limited McLean, Mary, Editor, Local Plannin§ Administration. Chicago: 1959. ICMA.