Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1966/05/16 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED u~.F. TING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA May 16, 1966 The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planni~ Commission of Chula Vista, Calif~ ornia, was held on the above date in the Council Chamber, Ciwio Center, with the fo~_lowing members present: Stewart, Smith, Johnson, Vaden, Adams, and Guyer. Absent: Member Stevenson (with previous notification). Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, Planning Draftsman Irish, City Attorney Lindherg, and Cit~ Engineer Cole. In the absence of Chairman Stevenson, Vice-Chairman Stewart presided over the meeting. ,STAm m The Secretary of the Co~issicn hereby states that she did post within 24 hours of adjou~ent, as provided by law, the order for the adjourned meeting of May 2, 1966. OF MSUC (Adams-Vaden) Approval of minutes for the meeting of May 2, 1966, as mailed. CONDITIONAL USE..PE~I.T .MAJESTIC DEVELO. PMENT~ INC.- Chairman pro-tern Stewart stated the two conditional use permits advertised for this meeting were done so in error and would not be heard by the Commission. They are to be administered by the Staff ,r~ there wf1~ be no public hearing. .PUBLIC .HEARING: (Cont'd) Permanent Zonin~ - Both Sides of Mol .ro~e. Avenue~.. South of Director of Planning Warren subnitted a plot plan noting the location mad adjacent uses. He e~qolained that this hearing was continued from the last meeting in order that the adjacent property owners could be properly notified of this request. The pr~per~s~ came into the City with an interim R-1 classifisation which was considered temporary until such time as permanent zoning would be considered appropriate. When the overa]ltentative subdivision map was considered, this area was left out of the map. The owners are now requesting that tzbe area he permanently zoned ac follows: 1. Northeast corner of Otay Valley Road and Melrose Avenue -M-1. 2. Northwest o~rnsr of Otay ValJey Road and Melrose Avenue (200, of frontage on Melrose) - C-2. 3. West side of Melrose Avenue between the parcel described in #2 and Princess Manor Unit #3 - R-1. Director Warren noted this area on the General Plan map and stated that it lies within an ~rea along Main Street designated as an Industrial reserve. He then sub- mitted a map delineating the proposed zoning for the Otay V~l~ey currently ~er consideration by the County. After discussing the different zonings proposed~ Mr, Warren indicated that~ at this point~ he did not know whether or not ~mis had been adopted by the Geunty. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was reopened. Mr. Harold Olds~ 360 Tournal~ne Court~ presented a petition signed by 33 property owners protesting the requested zoning. The hone owners in this area were under the impression that this area would be a neighborhood park; they did not know it wcatld be turned into heavy commercial or ~ustrial zoning. They also were not aware that an industrial reserve was indicated on the General Plan; this~ he admitted was an oversight on the part of the property owners in this area. Mr. Thomas Bryant~ 362 Tourmaline Court~ delcared that~ at the t~m~ he purchased his home (~mst August) the representatives of Princess Park Estates showed him a plan of the area and the property in question was shown as a playground. When he returned from overseas in March~ this same plan had been changed and now showed the area as one proposed for single-family development. Mr. Robert Bergan~ attorney for Princess Park Estates, stated that the former owners of this entire area first submitted their map in October, 1962 showing this area immediately adjacent to the Freeway as M-1. The General Plan clearly designates this area as light industrial. Resolution #262~ passed by the Planning Commission on March 4, 1963, stated "good zoni~ practice requires that tMs land be permanently zoned M-I." When the present ~,~rs submitted their map~ this portion was left out and marked "not a part of the subdivision." The zoning in the County~ adjacent te this area~ is zoned for agriculture; this ze~g, Mr. Bergen pointed out, is not too far from The requested industrla! zoning since it covers poultry farms~ dairies~ etc. Mr. Olde asked what the Planning Director's opinion is concerning the location of single family dwellings next to industrially-zoned land. Mr. Warren reviewed his ocm~ent regarding this as made in his report to the Commission which stated~ "It is sometimes difficult to properly relate M-1 uses to adjacent residmtial use, although many M-1 uses can be compatible with residential use~ depending upon how it is developed. The proposed zoning pattern would he mash more appropriate if some form of significant physical barrier existed." He added that there are sene industr~a~ uses that could be obnoxious; hewever~ with the "D" zone~ the Commission would have sene control over development~ which might promote compatibility. Mr. P. J. Fiore~ 342 Topaz Court~ remarked that an entirely new look should be taken at this area; that they are aS.ready burdened with a pollution problem hers on which the County Health Department is trying to help them. Chairman pro- tern Stewart asked for a show of hands in the audience of those opposing the zoning request. It was noted that 18 people had their hands raised. There be~g no further comment~ either for or against~ the hearing was declared closed. -2- Member Ada-~ said it was true that the General Plan does indicate industrial fer this area~ hewever, this should be a matter of timing - ~dnstrial zon~ should proceed in an erderly way from Third Avenue east. At this time, Mr. Adams continued, he cannot see an~ demand for industrial zoning hero f~r the next 20 years. He felt that industrial zoning shou~ move easterly from Third Avenue so that each parcel is adjacent to another industrially-zoned parcel. Member Vaden cemm~nted that lightmanufacturing space is needed, but doubted whether this was She right spot for it. He felt the area cn She south, although now zoned for agriculture in the County, w~,l~ be bet%er suited. Member Smith cited She commercial and ~4ustrial uses now exist~n8 in +.~R area. Member 0uyer suggested the Commission change the 0-2 request to 0-1 and add the "De zonse Director Warren discussed She propesed zoning requests and the objections. He counted Shat it was unfortunate Shat more people who pl~ ts buy homes in the Oity~ do not first come into the Planning Depaa'tment and check the area for zoning and future adjacent developments. He added it was true, that in the elementary stages of this area, mar~ maps were filed and an industrial reserve has always been considered. With the "D" zone attached to this zoning, the Oo~.m.~ssion would have SOme oontrel over the site developmente Member Adams remarked that if the Ce~missisn is going to zone this in accordance with the General F/An, they should zone it clear frem Third Avenue; it is unfortunate ts Just pick this area and spot zone it. Mr. Adams then questionsd whether the new zo~tn8 ordinance would exclude cmmnercial zoning fr~m industrial. Mr. WaxTen said he did not know the answer to that but that it had been considered a~d is now up te the Ce~nissione Chairman pre-tern Stewart commended that wish a substantial change of topography, grading down the M-1 area and attaching the "D" zone, M-1 and R-1 could abut without detrimental effect. City Attorney Li~herg stated that the new zoning ordinance might contain further limitations on the M-1 zone; ~$+~.until such time as this new zoning ordinance is adsptsd, the presently zoned M-1 area would he subject %o the existt~8 ordinanoese Mr. Ray Rainwater, representing Pri~_ess Park Estates,Inc., spoke of grading that wonl~ have to be done tn~ioatt~ that Main Street would be the main factor in gredfn~; they may have to grade in ~wo levels, however. They have already received inquiries regarding the lease of this land. Si~e this area was left out of the original sub- division map it would r~w be too difficult to try to design a residential subdivision. He declared that nothing was ever "hidden" here; it was always known that it would be industrially-~onsd s~me day. When questioned as ts whether they would have any objections Lf the "D# zone were ~ttached to this property, Mr. Rainwater, after conferring with Mr. Ralph treasurer of Princess Park Estates stated they would have no objection and would work closely with the Plann/ng Department on it. Mr. Rai~ater indicated they were Fro- posing a service station on the requested 0-2 zoning. -3- ~ember Johnson co~m~n~ed that there was no objection to the prepesed use at the _ time $~he General l~an hearings were held. ~mber Guyer suggested t~e matter be held off un$~tl affter the adoption of the zenir~ ordinance° Ch~rman pro-tern Stewart d~dn,t think it wo~ld be fa~ to leave the property in saspense until that t~. City Attorney L~berg stated that under the circumstances, s~nme the timing on the new zon~8 ordinance is not known with any certainty, it w~2d net be possible continue this matter, thas ~eventing the applicant from appealing whatever action might be taken by the Co~missicn. MS0 (~yer-~mith) Resolution of the City Planning Co~ission rece..~.~nding t~ the City 0ouno~l the permanent z~ning for heth sides RESOLUTION NO. 403 of Me~rose Avenue, so~th of PA~ess ~or #3, north of 0ray Val~sy Road to R-I, 0-1-D a~d M-ID That perm~r~nt zoning be rscom~nded as a. Nort~ast corner of Otay Valley Road and Melrose Avenue - M-1-D b. Northwest ~orner of Otay VaLley ~oad and Melrose Average (200~ of frontage on Melrose) - C-ID _ c. West side of Melrose Avenue between the parcel described in and Princess Manor Unit #3-R-1 The f~ad~n~e in support of said determination are as a. The C~neral Plan designates industrial uses for this entire area under consideration. As presently ,~tten~ cur M-1 zone allow most uses except ~sidential~ b. Many M-1 uses can be compatiblo ~ith re~id~nt±~l use~ upo~ how it is developed. Attac~waent of the "D" zone should give the control needed. c. The c~er~ zone is appropriately lceated in relation to the proposed interchange of Otay V~y Road and Interstat~ ~05. ~he m~tion carried by the following v~te, to wit.' AYES: Members ~uyer, S~ith, Johnson~ Stewar~, and Vaden ABSENT: 0hairman Stevens~ PUBLIC ,HEAR .INQ:, ,P~ezonir~ - 310 "¢", S.t .re,e,t - c. p. Kiffe - R-2 to R-.3. The application was x~ad in which a request ~vas made to prezone from County-zoned R-2 to R-3, that area located approximately 472' westerly from the centerline of Del Mar Avenue and extending in depth approximately 495' northerly from the center- lime of "C" Street. Director of Planning V(arren submitted a plot p~n noting the location of the ar~a, the adjacent land use and zo~d_ng. There is a steep bank which places this property much higher than the adjacent ~railer park on the west. At this time, the staff does not know of any specific plans the applicant has for the property. Chairman pre-tern Stewar~ questioned any landlocking of the area to the east. Ddrector ~arren i~cated that each of these parcels have access to Del Nar Avenue and that widening this street would be of no benefit to the industrial area north of this properby. He declared that none of these proper$ies would be landlocked s~n~e at this time, Third Avenue is dedicated to serve these properties if needed. This being the time and place as advertised~ the public hearing was opened. Mr. C. P. Kiffe, the applicant~ stated he intends to build apartments on this property. There being ne further oomm~-nt, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. ~e~ber Vaden questioned whether there would be a density control placed on this property. Director Warren said he discussed this with the applicant indicating the Comission may wish to place such a control on it. The trailer park to the west is zoned 0-2~ and is a non-conforming use, and the adjacent area in the county is zoned R-2. If the Commission follows the guidelines of the General Plan~ this would place it in a medium density el~-~sificatism. .~emher Adams remar~d that the topography and adjacent use makes it difficult for a single-family develo~aent and that it would seA, ye as a good buffer between the residential and the trailer park. Member Johnson stated I~ would li~e to see the "D" zone placed on this. }&ember Adams felt no lesser zoning tha~ that cente~olated by the new zoning ord- inance she~]d be placed on it, which is 1500 square feet of land area per dwelling unit. Director Wa~n noted that the new zoning ordinance wt,1] have three classifications: (1) High density or 1 unit per 800 squar~ feet of land area; (2) Medium density or 1 unit per 1500 sq~are feet and (3) Town houses which wi,Il be more restrictive. The present zoning ordinance designates classifications of R-3 or R-3-B-2, etc., Mr. Warren declared it would be stretching it if ar~ attempt was made to control the density with "D" zone. -5- ~e~ber Vaden felt it nn~ht be premature to prezons it at this t~e; that de£~to p]_aa~ should be hreught in. ~ember Adams could see n~ reason for not prezo~n~g it at this time; f~t the requirements for ~-~ tiple-fsmily MSUC (Adams-~uyer) Resolut~n ef the City ~g Comuissi~n recommending to the City Council the prezoning for RESOLUTION NO. ~04 310 "C" Street. That this preposed area be prezoned as follows: R-3-B-2-D (Multiple-f~ily, 2000 square feet of iand ~ea per unit, with architectural contrel) a. Although the General Plan designates this area as medium density residential (4-7 units per acre), R~3 is Justified fer the area bounded by "C" Street, Del U~r Avenue, Third Avenue right-of-way, and The City boundary to the north for the reasons +.hat (1) Abutting the area cn the west is a tr~tlAr park. (2) Abutting the a~ea on the north is industrially preper~y. (3) The area is presently Geun~-zened R-2 (duplexes). b. In view of adjacent existing and prepesed uses, it appears unlikely that a new single-family development would ecc~r en this property. CONDIT~NAL USE PERMIT8 r PUBLIC HEARING: (cent'd) Grace Baptist Tem~le- 3~ 'Fifth Avenue - Addition .to Director of Planning Warren submitted a plet plan reviewing the request as con- ttnued from the last meeting. The applicant is prepesing to construct a Sunday School building which weuld house classrcome~ a nursery, and a play r~om. This building would be a normal expansion of church facilities. At the previeus meet- ing, the Ccmmissisn had some questions as to the future expansion plar~ ~ this church; therefore~ the hearing was continued in order that the staff might get more facts. After discussing th~s with The applicant~ he indicated ~ they have no definite plans at this time but do propose a~ther building sometime in the ~uture. If they are restricted as to parking, they pl~ to ~ver pert of the ~st- ing drainage ditch for parking purposes. Mr. Warren then submitted a parking layout as proposed by the Staff, which weuld be subject to The applicant's approval. He then reviewed the recommendations of the staff~ indicating that the applicant we.f~ld have to get a new permit for amy future building propesed. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was reopened. Reverend Kenneth Johnson stated That the parking layout, as preposed by the staff~ was acceptable to them and added that it was an excellent idea. He then discussed -6- his proposed landscaping plans which would be in the form of a mall and planting. There being n~ further comment for er against~ the hearing was c~sed. The Cemission c~luded that the plan~ as presen~ed~ was acceptable. NSUC (Ouy~r-Johnson) Approval of conditional use permit subject to the fo~_lowing: 1. An~ unpaved parking area shall be paved with asphalt or concrete according te the spemifieations recommended by the City Engineer. The parking let area, which is presently paved, shall be resurfaced with seal coat as ap~eved by the Ci~ Engineer to p~event further deterioration of ~he existing parking. 2. Ail parking spaces shall be clearly delineated, following the plan prepared by the Staff. 3. A landscape plan for the planting area desi~aated on the plot plan prepared by the staff, shall be prepared and submitted to the Staff for approval. Such landscaping sh~ll be acco~olished prior to final inspection of the proposed building. Farther findings are as follews~ 1. That the granting of the conditional use permit will n~t be materially detrimental to the public health~ safety or welfare. None ef the factors delineated in the zoning ordinance are applicable in this case. 2. The characteristics of the use proposed are reasonably compatible with the t~pes of use permitted in the surrounding areas. There is already a church building $~ chapel on the preparty- the applicants mere-- ly wish te replace a dwelling with a Sunday school classroom ~&ilding for which adequate land is provided. VARIANCES .PUBLIE .HEARING: Charles B.. Offeman -.40 Third Avenue - 0-2 Use in 0-1-D Zo.ne The application was read in which a request was made te utilize the enclosed open area at ~be rea~ of the let for the purpose ef storage of vehicles. Director of Planning WaA-~n submitted a pl~t plan noting the location and the adjacent land uses. The applicants received a pemit to erect a fence only; vehicles are m~w being stored in this location. There is a great change in topography separating this area from that of the single-family residen~ial area to the south. This being the time and place as advertised~ the public hearing was opened. Mr. Charles Hick~y, son-in-law of the applicsmt, stated he was representing the applicant and will answer any questicns pertaining to the request. Mrs. Regina Davies, owner of property at 33 Third Avenue, objected to the request. She felt the pz~perty owners in this vicinity should have been notified aS the time the insurance company office was erected and again at the time the fence permit was obtained. -7- Chairman pre-tern Stewart declared the intended use was net known at the time they applied for a fence permit. Mr. Frank McKenna, 26 E. Whitney~ lessee of this property and owner of the insurance company office, stated the area is being used ~hiefly by Navy personnel who stere their cars wh~e on duty overseas. Chairman pre-tern Stewart discussed with Mr. McKenna the number of advertising signs he has on the premises, stating this amnunt was in e~cess of what the ordinance allews for one business. Mr. McKenna declared he will be removing some of them; right now~ he wants the exposure. Chairman pr~-tem Stewart requested the applicant to get in touch ~vith the staff and bring tho signs in cenformanee te the ordinance. Member Johnson noted the lack of any landscaping on the premises and suggested some be put in to screen this area from the Third Avenue exposure. There b~ ne further ce~nent, either for or against, the hearing was de~l~ed elesedo Member Vaden indicated that generally he was against a s%e~age area in this zone although it appears %hat this one co,~l~ be werhed out favorably. It could, on the other hand, open the door to many other similar requests. Member Adams said it was a geed thing te have a place whereby these serviceman could store their cars$ it is not permitted in a C-1 zone so a variance must be gr~mted for it. He agrees to the removal of some of the signs and that landscaping should be put in. MSUC (Johnson-Smith) Variance be granted subject te the following conditions: 1. Screening in the form of landscaping to be provided along the fence en the north side, subject to ~e approval of the Planni~ Director. 2. Variance approval is for the purpose of car storage only. 3. Signs presently erected on the premises including Third Avenue frontage~ are to be app~ved by the Director of Planning in order to conform to th~ ordinance. Further, findings he as foll~ws: 1. That there are practical d~fferences and unnecessary hardships within the meaning of Ordinance No. 398 as amended which would result in the strict compliance of the previsions of said ordinance. Se stated as del~r~ated helo~. 2. That there are excepticn~l ciroumstances and conditions applicable to t~e property herein in~lved or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to property or class of uses in the same zone. The area is primarily b,~lt up wit~ traffic-,riented uses, but since this area cannot be l~gically rezoned to allow for car storage, the only practical solution is a us~ -8- 3. The granting of such variance is necessary for the preservatisn cf the substantial property right of the applicant. The rear portion of this property~ as presently developed, is of little value because of the distance from the street and the topography te the south. Property has already been paved for parking (which is allowed) but must be approved for storage. 4. The grsnting of such variance wail not be nmteria21y detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property improvements in the zone or district in w?[ch said property is located. The use is adequately separated from adjacent residential use by topography and is not related to street frontage. PUBLI.C .HEARING: ~ .~n.e.s.A. Fer~us r 38~ Third Avenu?.. - Graphic .Arts a~.d ~b~.~bin~ - C-2 Use in ,C-1 Zone The application was read in which permission was asked to operate a publishing and printing business at 385 Third Avenue, a C-1 zone. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the pro- posed b~siness. PM also noted the adjacent uses and zoning in the area. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Fergus~ the applicant~ stated he was present to answer any questions pertain- ing to his request. There being r~ further comment, either for or against~ the hearing was declared closed. The Comnission discussed the previous publishing business located at this address. ~,-~r. Fergus state'that this company was not doing any printing, just publishing. Member Vaden commented he had no objection to this request. Member Adams remarked that he did not like to see these 0-2 uses going into zones; however, a precedent has already been established here. Member Johnson suggested this type of publishing business be listed under the C-1 uses and n~t $~e C-2. The Commission discussed the aspects of this operation~ comDaring it with that of the Star-News Pablishing Company. Mr. Fergus pointed out that his printing machine weights approximately 580 pounds as compared with the 1½ ton machine the Star-News has. Member Vaden questioned whether there ~ero any plans for expansion. Mr. Fergus stated he hepos someday to expand this business but not the machinery. -9- D~recter Warren discussed the changing character ef Tkird Avenue~ indicating per- haps that other business and specialty shops should go in there, if there are no ebJectior~. Chairman pre-tern Stewart cem~ented that this partic~tlar type ef business needs traffic oriented e~osure, and without this, the applicant cannot compete with his competitors. MSUC (Vaden-Ada~) Approval of variance for permission to operate a publishing and printing business at 385 Third A~nue. Findings be as follows: 1. That there are practical differences and unnecessary hardships within the meaning of Ordinance No. 398 as amended which would result in the strict cemplisnce of ~he previsions of said ordinance. So stated as delineated ~elew. 2. That there are exceptional cir~,~tances and conditions applicable te the prepsrty herein involved or the intended use thereof that do net apply generally to property er class of uses in the same zone. There was an existing publishing company at th~s address recently. In addition t~c other pub]_ishing companies operate within the immediate area. 3. The grantin~ of such variance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial property right of the applicante Without this variance, the applicant is deprived of the right to conduct a business similar te ether printing business in this s~me area and zone. 4. The grating of such variance w~11 not be materially detrimental to the public welfare er injurious te the property improvements in the zone or d~strict in which said property is located. Others en~ey this same use without apparent preblems~ It appears that this ~m~ln~- lng eperatien would be of a lighter nature than the newspaper office in this sam~ zonee PUBLIC HEARING: P.e.utou~. & ~ar~. ,tega Dev~..1,opmant Cemoany - Les Chateaux Subdivision- Request for reduction in lot sizes from TO.OO s~. ft. to m~nimum The application was read in which a request was made for permission to reduce the let sizes from 7000 sq. ft. to 5400 sq. ft. for homes in the La ~ha~eaux sub- division. Director cf Planning Warren stated a pstition was received signed by 202 proper~y owners representing 121 properties in this area, pretesting this request. He felt these people were net aware of just what the applicant proposed to do and how it would affect the area. - 10- This subdivision is located Just north of Orange Avenue and east of the pre- posed L~terstate 805 Freeway and comprises 66 acres. It is presently being annex- ed to the City and wi.ll come in with an interim R-1 zoning. The first map sub- mitted was in accordance with the ordinance; however, this subdivision moves in- to very rough topography and has several canyons; north of this area is the Grog Rogers Park. The first map showed the development of the canyon areas$ however, there is always the question 'q~!qy is it necessary to change our natural features." Mr. Warren continued, stating one way to stop this would be to try a modified cluster t~pe development. Sc, the Staff suggested to the developer to red:ce the lot sizes and leave the carwon areas oper~ Mr. Warren said the average lot here would be 6,822 square feet, the open area per lot wLll be 1,523 square feet, making the open space and lot average 8,345 square feet. The developer will be getting no more lots per acre with this plan than with his original plan. There are still several problems to be solved; depending upon the action on this variance; the Staff would like te taks this to the Parks & Recreation Commission on ThursdAy evening to get their reactions and opinions as to the City accepting these nat- ural canyons for parks and recreational purposes; wtll the canyons be dedicated to the City; what problems will arise as to Fire protection, etc. This a com- pletely new venture on the part of the staff and a subdivider; it is not a pan- acea, but seems to be a step in the right direction. Member Jo?tureen asked if any thought was given to the natural access to the canyons. Director Warren pointed out the different proposed access routes to the canyon areas. Member Aa~ felt more study should be given this matter. Chairman pro-tom Stewart questioned whether this map was submitted for ce~ente to the Police and Fire Departments. DS_rector Warren said it was not offic~-lly$ however, the Police do consider most cf the canyons a problem. Some form of greurd cover may have to be planted to el- iminate f/re hazard - these are other problems that wtll have to be worked out a~t brought back te the next meeting. Mr. Demis Wittman, the applicant, discussed the proposed plan for the sub- division. He stated they ~ropose to con.struct a 50' x 50' module house on a 60' x 90' pad with setbacks. 'Zhey cannot eliminate terraces altogether, and will have a 15' to 20' change in elevaticn~ in some cases. After working closely on this ~p, they now find they can go to a minimum lot of 5900 square feet lusted cf the 400 requested; as a matter of fact, they cou]~ go to 6,000 square foot lots with- out any difficulty. As to the grading for the subdivision, Mr. Wittman stated they w~11 have to meet the grading already established at the southern part of the subdivision by tho adjacent developer. ~hey w11] be providing walkways to the proposed school site and to the car~on areas. The ho~mes w~l~ range in cost from $15,000 to $20,000.00. Mr. William Cox~ 1570 Oleander Street, pretested the request, questioning how msz~ of the concessions regard/rig walkways to the parks and open areas were not act- ually oversights but made because of the opposition. He felt that once the var- iance was approved, a cheaper house could be constructed; that the "D" zone will not assure an expensive hom~ being constructed here. The traffic density will increase tremendously and the subdivision plans as they now stand do not provide for very many access reads. Mr. Cox asked what assurance they had that these open areas would not be developed sometime in the future. He added that the developer realized the rough topography in this area when he purchased the land, and questioned his need for purchasing land such as this in order to turn it in- to smaller lots for development. Mr. Richard Pearson, l~l~7 Oleander Streets declared the minin~m size of lets should be 7sOOO sq,,are feet~ which everyone in the City no~ has. This proposed plan for smaller lots wil.] depreciate the value of his home. Tb~ subdivider says this is an "experiment" but they are e~perimenting with his home. He added that everything looks good on paper, but very seldom works out that way in the finished product. Director Warren explained the proposed subdivision plan, stating by ordinances the developer would be allowed 280 lots~ 7sO00 square foot miu~a. By leaving the canyons in an open area~ and making the lots smaller~ the developer st111 proposes to have 280 lots; the average lot wiql be 6822 square feet with com- pensating open space. There will be no increase in homes and no increase in cars · City Attorney Lindberg substantiated this, stating that the original m~p~ as sub- mitred, does coliform to the requirements of the ordinance which gives the same density as the alternate proposed by the staff - there w~11 be no rare added traffic or number of people under the alternate plan as that plan originsdly proposed. Mr. Robert Bergan, attorney for Princess Park Esta~ess Inc., stated their object- ions to the proposed request. He declared ~hat C~ula Vista adopted the 7,000 square foot lot minimum as a standard ar~ this has been followed in many thous- ands of homes in this area. This is not a proper subject for a variance as there are no exceptional circumstances. Mr. Bergan read from the minutes of the previous meeting; whereby the Commission stated this proposed subdivision plan was an "experiment." He declared that if there are topographical problems con- hooted with this particular area, than a variance should be granted for reduct- ion of setbacks. Mr. Bergan further stated that ~he Co~nission is being "mislead" if they are sold on the idea that this proposal is good planning. The Parks and Recreation Department has not been contacted as to whether they even want this land~ and there is always .the possibility of a brush fire start- lng in the canyon and sweeping on to the homesites. Mr. Bergan declared that this map is too premature~ and that this is not a case for the P!~uiug Ce,wniesion th deviate from the 7sOOO square foot lots· Mr. Ray Rainwater~ representing Princess Park Estatess Inc., stated they devel- oped their adjacent subdivision utilizing the c~yon and placing in it an excess- lye drainage stracture at a very great cost. They wo,,ld like to see the 7~000 sq,,are foot minimum size lots maintained ~n this subdivision; this would insure that the homes they have constructed will maintain their value. Mr. Rainwater declared this plan was not even remotely close to bei~.g a'~cluster develepme~t; lawger lots are prevalent in a cluster development. The school site will not have a walk~ay to the open areas; the schools always enclose their areas with a chain link fence. He added tb~t the traffic problem would be greatly improved with the 7000 square foot lots, but not with the smaller lots. - 12 - Mr. Wittman stated this plan was net their idea, but that of the City. The City is constantly moving from level land to the more rugged terrain. This would be a good opportunity to keep these canyons as an open area, and they seuld ge ts 6000 square foot lets in order to do this. The develepere have ne objection staying with their original 7000 sq,,~re foot lots, and if this turns out to be a long drawn-out affair, they wo~ld like to ge hack to their first m~p, as submitted. There being ne further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Director l¥arren said he was amazed at some of t~e comments made by such a~ ex- perienced developers, especially the one that a cluster development creates larger lets. This was not a typical cluster development - it is a chance te save part ef canyons, and admittedly, not all canyons should he saved. He added that he felt almost all property owners word be willing to give a few feet~ off their lot in order to have a natural canyon area rather than a concrete drainage structure. On the ot~r hand, by adding a thousand feet to the lets and filling in every canyon and b~llside~ how can this be better planning. The variance is for a reduction in lot size and not for the street pattern. Mr. Warren suggested that action on the subdivision be deferred until the r~xt meeting in order to work with our departments on it. City Attorney Lir~berg stated that the use of a variance to permit reduction em lot sizes was a legal and proper use in this instance. The developer is willing to subdivide the property with 7000 square foot lots; however, the City is suggest- ing that the open spaces be dedicated te the City, thus reducing the land avail- able and creating a hardship. C~airmau pre-tom Stewarb discussed the Bonlta-Bel A~re subdivision where heavy grading and f~l~ were done~ and declared it is in the public interest that this proposed plan be put in here if the Park and Recreation departments can use the land. He suggested the Police and Fire Depart~nts look into this and su~t their counts. Member Johnson felt this plan was a very geed first step in preserving green space; he hopes that this sort of thing will continued and in the future, the City save a lot of the canyons. He added that a study should be ma~e to provide more green space within the development itself. MSUC (Adame-Johnson) Matter be continued to the meeting of June 6th in order that the staff may present this proposal to the Parks and Recreation Commission to get their opinion as to whether or not it would be feasible to accept the natural canyons for open space. SUBDIVISION - (oent'd) Les Chateaux - Tentati~ Ma~ Since this map relates to the above va~iance~ this w~ be held in abeyance until the meeting of June 6, 1966. Appreval of Shopping Center Plan - Halecrest Drive & Telegraph Canyon Director of Planning Warren submitted the plot plan for this proposed shopping center. ~e area encompasses approxLmately 6 acres, and this will be one the areas under the new C-N zone. The staff ~as met with the developer andha has been quite cooperative. He proposes to develsp this center in ~o phases. Director ~:~n noted the areas for landscaping and discussed ~he proposed parking l~ut noting the access points on ~almcrest Drive. He meted tbs lsca- tion of the proposed food market and the service station. The applicant is asking for consideration of ~e overall plan, and particularly the approval of Phase #1. ~e is not present tonight since the staff felt it would be unnecess- ary in view of the meetings held with him prior to this Comissisn meeting. Mr. ~;arren then reviewed the reco~ndations of the Staff, adding that the developer will work with them as te signs~ etc. Member ~uyer corn,ended the Staff on the recommendations. MSUC (¥aden-~u~er) Approval of plans for the sbepping center subject te the following co~tions: PHASE .I 1. All ut;l~ties sh~l~ be placed underground. 2. Trash containers for tenants =~d shoppers s~ be shown on plot plan. 3. No pennants, whirligigs~ or banners shall be permitted. 4. Signs shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval~ 5. All ~ndscaping sha~,l be provided as shown sn the plot plan with the following exceptisne: a. E~ch planter within the parking area shall contain a ~t~;~mm of one ~ree~ b. The planters along Halecrest Drive shall be expanded to a 10' width° c. A cerrected landscape plan shall be submitted for the Plug Director's approval prior ~o the issuance of any building permits. 6. Irrigation plan showing sprinkler system shall be ~bmitted prior to completion of Phase I and installation of said system prior to final electrical inspection on market building. 7. Ail roof projections (ventilation, air conditioning, etc.,) shall be ~rchitec~urally screened and approved by the Planning Director. 8. Phase I shall be expanded as shown on plot plan f~-d with the Planning Depart~nt. - 14 - 9. The large freestanding si~ existing on the Telegraph Can~n Read frontage at this time is specifically not approved for use with Phase Io PHASE II 1. Approval shall be gi~n for general layout only. 2. A landscaping plan sha13 be presented to the Plann/~g Direo~ for approval prior to the issuance of building permits en any portisn of Phase II. 3. Ail landscaping en Phase II shall be completed prior to the issuance of occupan~_.y permits on an~ pertisn of this phase. Director of Planning ~arren reviewed with the Co~ien the fact that the City Council had r~ferred to them for detailed study~ the future alignment ef Orange Avenue between First Avenue and the Princess Manor subdivision. Opposition had been received at the Council meeting from Mr. Rienstra and Little League Repre- ~sentatives when the Final map of Holiday Estates was considered. The route through that subdivision was in conformance with the Geueral Plan~ but was not favored by Mr. Risnstra. The aligrm~nt originally proposed would have fo]lowed the southerly lira of the San Diego Gas and Elec~rie Company Right-of-way, but was abandoned because of the conflict with the sch~l site and neighborhood park. Mr. Rienstra indicated that if this alignment is adopted~ he will dedicate the required right-of-way ~vhere it passes through his properS. The Staff discussed briefly the report prepared by the Engineering Division, copies of which the Co~sion had previously received. This report delineated four alter- nato alignments, labelled "A" "B" "C" and "D"; of which alternate "D" was recommend- ed for approval. After discussion and further review of the staff reports, the Commission concluded that alternate "D" would best serve ultimate development of adjacent areas and is in conform~.e with the General Plan. Member Vaden indicated that not enough consideration has been given in the past t~ good east-west thoroughfares and the problems associated with se~nts of "L" Street are il~nstrative. Only by such long range planni~ as being reco~nended tonight, wi~ alleviate this problem in the future. Chairman pre-tern Stewart commented on the e~ellence and thoroughness of the reports. MSUC (Ouy~r-Job~son) Recommend to the City C~uncil the adoption of Alignment "D" as delineated in the Staff report. This ali~u~nt conforms to the General Plan and will provide for the best ultimate development of the adjacent property. - 15 - Waiver of Tn~tallation of Publ. ic_. _I_m~re~ments - Northwest corner K~ Te~ace ~d ~ A~ A letter f~m ~. C~l S~ey, City ~c~s~g A~nt~ was ~ad ~ which he ~ques~d a wai~r ef s~ew~k ~u~nts on t~ ~rd A~ ~n~ge of the City~ed let as ~ ~e~t ~ st~,~ bi~ on ~e ~e~y. St~f ~d appro~l of the ~q~st ~ accord~ce wi~ t~ir w~t~n A ~ ~m ~e ~er~g ~sion was read ~ w~ch ~ey ~comended wai~r of c~ ~d sid~ en t~ ~ep~y. ~e Co~s~n concl~ed that t~s ~quest w~ ~aso~ble wh~ ~d ~ e~ ~g ~d p~sed de~l~nt of ~e ~a. ~C (Jo~n-Va~n) App~v~ of t~ wai~r of si~ ~ c~b ~qu~n~ on ~ A~n~ si~ of City~med p~pe~y at t~ ~st co~er of K~ ~ace ~d ~d A~n~ for the fe~ ~asons: 1. T~ ~ no side,ks en ~ A~nue ~een "D" S~et ~d Fo~ A~e. 2. ~o of t~ lots on ~e south side of on ~ a~ erx~d ~ ~ ~ace t~t ~e o~ers wo~d co~t~ s~ks at ~e rear of the~ p~ies. 3. Most of the p~y ~o~ t~ ~d A~e ~nsien co~erc~y zend ~ ~s ~ ~lation ~ ~sident~l ~as so the need for slOw,ks ~ ~ga~d. 4. ~e~ is litt~, ~ ~, ~dest~ tra~l ~o~ ~ A~nue ~nsion. ~e ~rious co~rc~ i~ta~tions ~ t~ ~c~i~ of Fo~ A~nue ~ "C" Steer ~ of such c~c~r as ~ze ~o~ble ~e ~destri~ tra~l alo~ ~ A~ ~ion. 5. Co~ct~n of s~k wo~d not s~g ~ ex~ive lo~it~ ~l~. ~t~d for th~ c~ve~ ~ $4~O~. It is l~ ~at the City ~d to ~ a~ or a ~Jor ~rtion of the c~t of the c~. Th~ ~e is not co~i~d ~tif~d ~ ~ ef the ~ p~b2$ ~ of a sid~. It s~d ~ ~d ~t ~e Core,sion t~k City ~s~e ~11 ~s~ib~ity for the ~a~ge adja~nt di~t~ ~t t~s s~d ~ ~fe~d ~ t~ Ci~ ~. Reguest for ,Ex%e, usicn of Time - Rio ,hfi, e,!d Oil Corporat, io,n - 720 "H" Stree, t - Director of Planning Warren referred to a letter received by the Richfield Oil Corporation requesting a 30 day extension of time to complete their service station at 720 "~' Street. This variance was granted to them on December 6, 1965. MSUC (Ouy~r-Vaden) Approval of a 3C-day extension on Variance Resolution #65- 48 for the Rickafield 011 Corporation. Discuss, ion, ,- ?,cst Office Department Requirement for Curbside Mail Delive,~. Director of Planning Warren discussed a recent ruling by the Post Office Depart- m~nt stating that curbside delivery will be the only type of service provided to Draw City delivery territories. Representative Wilson is trying to get the P~st Office to delay this ruling. Director Wa~-~n said he called the Postmaster about this, and Hr. ~arl Stahlheber explaimed that this ~,11ng bec~ effective May 9, 1966; the first area to be affected in ~he City is Princess Manor Unit #4 which contains 196 homes. The Staff would suggest that the Commission request the Council to adopt a resolution pretesting this action. Mr. Wea=~en felt that this ruling was ridiculous in view of the recent ordirmnee passed by both the Com~i-~ien and Council requiri~ underground utilities in new subdivision. C~airman pro-tern Stewart in discussing the display of curbside boxes erected Just inside the sidewalk felt that this would be detrimental to the aesthetics of any new subdivision in the City and would encourage vandalt.~m. MSUC (Adams-Smith) Recomm. nd to theCity Council that they submit a resolutisn of protest to the Post Office Department and to the representatives in Congress con- cerning the recent ruling of the Post Office in regard to Curbside service. Report of Findings -Ay~ Gee CorporatioD The report of findings was reviewed in which a variance was denied to allow the outside storage of fertilizer and chemicals at 540 Thixd Avenue. Chairman pre-tom Stewart requested a statement be inserted whereby the Commission required similar storage of materials fer anet/~er applicant in this same zone. (Peter's Hardware Store). Member Adams asked that another statement be put in stating this materL~l stored in the open ~vas unsightly. MSUC (Ouyer-Vaden) Report of findings be approved with the suggested insertions. WOrn. HOP S A proposed workshop meeting was discussed whereby the Co~m~ssicn would meet to review off-street parking in R-1 zones and flood plain zoning. May 31st was suggested as a possible meeting date; however, this was left to the Staff and the Commissioner's would be called. - 17 - VACATION Member Ouyer stated that he w~l be on vacation and will m~s the next three or four meetings. P,u ic, wom Mr. Lane Cole, City Engineer, informed the Commission that it was Public Works Week and invited them to Open House at the City Oorperation Yard on Wednesday~ May 18th. NSUC (Vaden-Johnson) Meeting adjourn si~, die. Meeting adjourned at 10:30 P. M. Respectfully submitted~ - 18 -