HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1966/05/02 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
May 2, 1966
The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California,
was held on the above date in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, with the
following members present: Stevenson, Stewart, Smith, Vaden, Adams, and Guyero
Absent: Member Johnson (with previous notification). Also present: Director of
Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, Planning Draftsman Irish, City
Attorney Lindberg, and Principal Engineer Harshman.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Adams-Stewart) Minutes of April 18, 1966, be approved, as mailed.
ZONINGS
PUBLIC HEARING: Permanent Zoning - Both Sides of Melrose Avenue, South of Princess
Manor Unit No. 3, North of Otay Valley
Director of Planning Warren submitted a map delineating the areas presently zoned
interim R-1 requested for prezoning: (1) northeast corner of Otay Valley Road and
Melrose Avenue - M-l; (2) northwest corner Otay Valley Road and Melrose Avenue
(200~ of frontage on Melrose Avenue) - C-2; (3) west side of Melrose Avenue between
the parcel described in #2 and Princess Manor Unit #3 - R-1. Mr. Warren noted
the area on the General Plan map which designates industrial use for the entire
area; however, he pointed out that the Plan does not seek to define property lines,
merely indicates a concept of use. At this time, there is little indication that
industrial development will occur in the area, and how much will be needed. The
developers have planned their subdivision based on the assumption that subject
property would be zoned M-1. The property to the west is partially vacant and
with some single-family development and is in the County; the east s~de of the Free-
way is single-family. Subject area was left with interim R-1 zoning and the
owners are now asking that it be permanently zoned in accordance wi th the General
Plan.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Harold 01ds, 360 Tourmaline Court, spoke in opposition to the request. He and
his neighbors are situated above this location so that they will be looking down
on this site. He said he and his neighbors were not notified of the hearing; he
heard about it quite by accident just a day or two ago. He asked that the hearing
be continued until the next meeting so that the residents in the area would have
a chance to voice their opinions on this proposal. He added that they would
present a petition protesting this request, since most of them felt that M-1
zoning would detract from the properties.
Director Warren explained that most of the homes here have just recently been
sold, and the City tax records still show the ownership as Princess Park Estates.
Mr. Richard Kasper, representing Princess Park Estates, stated they have no
definite plans for this area at this time. It was set aside at the time the map
was made to be in conformity with the General Plan of the City.
-1-
There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
Vice-Chairman Stewart asked what the proposed County zoning was for this area.
Director Warren stated that the County has been working on a zoning pattern for
the area and have had some meetings on it; presently, they are talking about an
industrial zoning for this area, but that he was not completely familiar with
the present plan.
Vice-Chairman Stewart declared he would l~ke to know what the County plans are
for this area, and also, because the residents were not notified, he would suggest
the matter be continued and a notice sent out to these people notifying them of
this request.
The Commission agreed, stating the developer indicated he had no definite plans
for the area, and so a two-week delay would not be an imposition.
MSUC (Adams-Smith) Hearing be continued until the meeting of May 16 and the staff
be directed to review the proposed zoning for this area as recommended by the
County Planning Commission in their studies; also, the residents in this area
are to be notified of this continued public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING: Prezoning - Sweetwater Valley Annexation No. 2 to R-1-B-20-D and
A-D
Director of Planning Warren submitted a map of the proposed annexation showing
the prezoning requested. The City golf course and Rohr Park will be prezoned
"A-D" (agriculture with architectural control); whereas, R-l-B-20 (20,000 square
foot lots, is requested for the adjacent acreage by the property owner. He is
contemplating a development for this area similar to that of Bonita Verde sub-
division or perhaps, a cluster-type development. The General Plan has placed
this entire area in an open-space classification because most of it is in a flood
plain; however, with the "D" zone, the Planning Commission and Council have
greater control over development, and if properly planned, the flood problem
can be overcome.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Charles Provence, owner of the acreage requested for R-l-B-20 prezoning,
stated he agreed to the annexation because of this prezoning request, and of
course, he is interested mainly in the permanent zoning. He declared that the
area will be filled subsequent to any development. At the present time, he has
no definite plans for development.
City Attorney Lindberg stated he discussed this matter with Mr. Provence and the
Planning Director and it was suggested that this hearing be continued to a date
subsequent to the final annexation, and that action on the zoning be taken at
that time. At that time, the Planning Commission may recommend the final zoning
to the Council; this would eliminate another hearing on this matter. Since there
is no serious objection from anyone on this prezoning request, the permanent
zoning can be done in this manner.
Director Warren indicated the staff would like to follow this procedure since it
will save them a couple of steps later on.
-2-
City Attorney Lindberg commented that this procedure is outlined in the new
zoning ordinance, which will be given to the Commission shortly. Following this
procedure, the Commission can continue the matter without having to advertise
again.
Vice-Chairman Stewart noted the Commission generally concurs with the prezoning
request.
MSUC (Guyer-Stewart) This matter be continued to the meeting of June 20, 1966,
so that annexation proceedings will be complete, and at which time, the Commission
will recommend to the City Council that this property be permanently zoned as
requested.
PUBLIC HEARING: Prezonin~ - North Side of Quintard Street between Tobias Drive
and Hilltop Drive to R-3
The application was read in which a request was made to prezone to R-3 that
property on the northwest corner of Nilltop Drive and Quintard Street. It is
presently zoned R-1-B in the County.
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location and adjacent
land use. The area is the subject of an annexation request; the present uses on
the area are residential, a poultry business, and an accounting business within
one of the single-family homes. The applicants have not indicated any specific
plans for development.
Chairman Stevenson asked what the General Plan designates for th~s area. Director
Warren remarked that the Plan places it in a medium density classlficat~on,
generally considered single-family.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared opened.
Mr. George Edwards, one of the applicants, explained that the chicken farm and
the accounting business were in operation in this area long before there was any
zoning here. He asked that the Director again delineate the adjacent land uses
in this area.
Director Warren noted that their application spells this out - the J L J apart-
ments exist further to the west and a mobile home park on the west of First Avenue;
adjacent to this is the warehouse for the chemical company, and then a group of
commercial operations in the area. Most of the single-family development are on
minimum size lots.
Mr. Nicholas Besker, 1382 Hilltop Drive, also an applicant, remarked that there
are nine homes on Quintard between Third Avenue and Hilltop indicating that the
present zoning probably isn't right, or more extensive development would have
occurred. He added that there are several commercial uses along Quintard. The
present lots are too large for single-family use.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
Member Vaden discussed the Commission's consideration of that property adjacent
to the J L J apartments a few months ago which they denied because they felt
there was already adequate R-3 zoning in the City. He added he could see no reason
to change his mind at this time.
Vice-Chairman Stewart commented that the existing land use has had an unfavorable
effect on the area, and rather than zone this area in a manner that would delineate
the same use, they should try to upgrade it. Mr. Stewart felt that R-3 zoning for
this particular area would create an island here, and further, that it would
violate good zoning practice.
Member Vaden suggested lot splits as a possibility out here.
Upon further discussion, the Commission agreed that the requested zoning was not
the best for this area.
MSUC (Vaden-Adams) Prezoning request to R-3 be denied for the following reasons:
1. The General Plan designates this area as medium density residential which
corresponds to the R-1 classification.
2. Abutting this property to the north is a parcel on which an RI1 subdivision
is planned.
3. The staff is presently processing an annexationrequest and single-family
subdivision map for the parcel across Quintard Street from the subject
property.
4. The Planning Commission and the City Council recently denied R-3 zoning in
this area (Palomar and Second) - there appears to be even less justification
for R-3 at the subject location.
5. If this request is approved, a spot zone would be created since, upon com-
pletion of the proposed annexations to the north and south, this property
would be surrounded on three sides by R-1 or R-1-B zoning and uses and on
the fourth side by a school.
Director Warren commented that if the prezoning is denied by the Council, they
could either withdraw their annexation request or come in with an interim R-1
zoning.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
PUBLIC HEARING - Grace Baptist Temple - 345 Fifth Avenue - Addition to Church
The application was read in which a request was made to erect a Sunday school
building which would ho~e classrooms, a nursery, and a play room.
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the
proposed building. He also showed the elevation of the new building, noting
the construction contemplated. He stated that the staff has been working with
them on this plan, and based on what they have indicated, this is the final plan
for their church. In this event, the staff would recommend that permanent
improvements be made at this time, and that the final layout of the parking be left
up to the staff for approval. Mr. Warren discussed the landscaping which the
staff would ask be recommended for approval.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
-4-
Kenneth Johnson, Pastor of the Church, stated this was not the final plans for
the church; further buildings are proposed for this site at some future date.
Director Warren commented that if this were the case, further study should be
given to determine whether or not additional buildings could be accommodated and
still meet ordinance requirements.
Vice-Chairman Stewart suggested the matter be contineued until the next meeting.
Reverend dohnson remarked that this would be no real problem, except for the
fact that they are working with the Fire and Building Departments on it. Director
Warren indicated that they could satisfy these departments as to the continuation.
Reverend Johnson stated that the new classrooms will not affect the parking in
the least; that they have enough paved parking now that will take care of the
church's needs for the next 5 years.
Director Warren questioned the applicant as to his future plans - the buildings
contemplated, their location, etc. Reverend Johnson stated there was nothing
on paper, but they are thinking of another building at the north side of the
property and an auditorium which will be constructed at the end of the classrooms
toward Fifth Avenue.
Vice-Chairman Stewart felt this should be studied prior to the next meeting; he
commented that they do not have information to act on this matter tonight.
Director Warren indicated that the Commission could grant this request tonight;
however, the applicant would have to apply for another conditional use permit
at another time for this new building. At this point, Mr. Warren added, the
applicant doeshave adequate space for parking.
Vice-Chairman Stewart questioned whether the surfacing was adequate. Director
Warren said they would perhaps need to do some patching and resurfacing.
Reverend Johnson stated it would be a real hardship on them if they were required
to resurface the entire lot. He indicated the lot was in good condition with
just a couple of exceptions which could be repaired.
Director Warren said it was not the staff's intention that the entire lot be
resurfaced; that a public works inspector should inspect the premises and they
should repair whatever is necessary. Also, it may not be possible to do any
landscaping until they see what the final plans are.
Reverend Johnson expressed concern as to the cost of the resurfacing. Mr. William
Harshman, Principal Engineer, stated the field associate looked at this lot and
recommended a ~ coat which is an inexpensive process used to prolong the life
of a parking lo~. In the long run, this will save them considerable money.
Vice-Chairman Stewart suggested again that this be postponed and that the applicant
get together with the staff and discuss the landscaping and his proposed fu£ure
development.
MSUC (Adams-Vaden) Hearing be continued to the meeting of May 16, 1966, so that
the applicant may be able to formulate more definite plans as to the future
expansion program of the church; also, that the applicant get together with the
staff to better organize the paving and landscaping plans for the site.
-5-
PUBLIC HEARING: Aye Gee Corporation - 540 Third Avenue - Plant Nursery in C-1
zone
The application was read in which a request was made to fence in an area 50'xl60'
along the north end of the building for the purpose of selling and storing garden
and patio merchandise.
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location as the
B J Ranchmart. He noted there was sufficient parking on the premises so no
additional parking was necessary. Following this application is a variance for
the fence height and outside storage of fertilizer.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Chairman Stevenson commented that the Commission has had several standard opera-
tions like this throughout the City, mostly in commercial areas.
Vice-Chairman Stewart commented that many time, some of the products that are
available for sale are odoriferous, and questioned whether these products
would be sold.
Mr. Seymour Rayburn, Secretary of B J Ranchmart, stated they plan to have some
fertillzer for sale but this is packaged and has no offensive odor. Vice-Chairman
Stewart questioned whether he would object to a condition that no odoriferous
material be sold in th~s location. Member Adams stated this is the reason why
they have this provision in the C~l zone - that this material must be store in
a building.
The Commission discussed the similarity of this business with that of Unlmart.
Member Adams commented that Unimart is in a C-2 zone whereas this is a C-1 zone.
Director Warren explained the two applications - the one under consideration now
being the conditional use permit to permit a nursery establishment here; the
ordinance allows for one in this zone with a conditional use permit. It must be
assumed that any fertilizer will be within an enclosed building - that is the
subject of the variance request which follows.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
Vice-Chairman Stewart commented on the area along "H" Street which is unsightly
and although not part of this property should really be landscaped. Also, the
parkway east of the building is another area that is unkempt.
Mr. Rayburn declared that property was under one ownership but not under their
lease, however. The owner had mentioned that he proposed to put some decompossd
granite on the lot to improve the appearance.
Member Vaden questioned having a definite enclosure for the trash behind the
building. With "H" Street becoming more and more populated with apartments, etc.,
he felt it would look better if the trash were enclosed. The area surrounding the
containers is badly littered.
Mr. Rayburn stated they are using trash bins furnished by the company at the
present time; however, this is something that could be worked out. Actually, they
wanted to go into this project with the minimum of expense, first promoting the
-6-
market and now they are ready to expand the nursery. If they were permitted to
extend the proposed fencing to the west a little, this could accommodate the
trash problem.
The Commission concurred that this would be agreeable.
MSUC (Adams-Vaden) Recommend approval of the request subject to the following
condition:
I. An enclosed area shall be provided at the rear of the store for the purpose
of refuse disposal.
Further, findings be as follows:
1. That the granting of the conditional use permit will not be materially
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. None of the factors
delineated in the zoning ordinance would be significantly present.
2. The characterlst~cs of the use proposed are reasonably compatible with the
types of use permitted in the surrounding areas. A nursery is complimentary
to a shopping center of this type.
VARIANCES
PUBLIC HEARING: Aye Gee Corporation - 540 Third Avenue - Request for 0utsid~
Display of Merchandise and Increase in Fence Height
The applica~tion was read in which a request was made for an increase in the
height of the fence from 6' to 9' and to allow the outside sale and storage of
materials.
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location and explain-
ing that the City Code allows a 6' high fence and the sale and storage of materials
must be in an enclosed building.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Seymour Rayburn, Secretary, Aye Gee Corporation, submitted some pictures of
the store taken at the time of their opening. He stated that the increased
height of the fence was for the protection of the materials they will have stored
there. The main point, however, is the storage of the chemicals and fertilizers;
they feel there will be no odors from any of this material.
Member Adams commented that if the material was stored in a building, then the
applicant could keep this lod~d and would need only a 6' fence. Mr. Rayburn
remarked that the fence height was necessary for the storage of garden tools and
patio furniture.
Chairman Stevenson questioned how the applicant can be certain there will be no
odor from the chemicals and fertilizers; he commented, if there was, there will be
a number of irate citizens living down along "H" Street that will be c cmplaining.
Mr. Rayburn stated he was formerly associated with Unlmart and through this
experience can verify that there is no odor from these materials.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
-7-
Member Adams commented that should the Commission waive this requirement for this
applicant, it will start a precedent whereby other property owners in C-1 zones
will be coming in requesting the same thing. The Commission has always felt that
the C-1 zone should be more "dressed up~' than a C-2 zone. Mr. Adams added that
he felt the requirement to store this material in a building should definitely be
enforced. However, he agrees that the 9' fence should be granted as it is needed for
this operation.
Vice-Chairman Stewart discussed the possible odors from this material and commented
that if the Commission allows this storage in an open area and then the problem
comes up in the future of the odors, there would not be much that the Commission
could do about it except perhaps take it to court and prove it is a public nuisance.
With the R-1 use so close to this operation, Mr. Stewart remarked that it behooves
the Commission to require that this material be stored in an enclosed building.
Member Smith agreed, adding that it would be especially advantageous to store this
material in an enclosed building during the rainy season.
Mr. Rayburn questioned the storage of bottled chemcials, such as "vlgoro," etc.
Chairman Stevenson suggested that any question as to the type of materials to be
stored could be checked with the Planning staff.
MSUC (Adams-Guyer) Variance to permit construction of a 9 foot high fence (including
barbed wire) be granted with the condition that all bagged fertilizers and chemi-
cals (no bulk storage) be stored in an enclosed buil~ ng.
Further, 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
compliance of the provisions of said ordinance. So stated as dellneated
below.
2. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to the property
herein involved or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to
property or class of uses in the same zone. The property is sepanated from
adjoining buildings by an adequate distance to eliminate the problems associated
with restriction of light and air. The ordinance restriction was not meant to
apply to such situations.
3. The granting of this variance is necessary for the preservation of the
substantial property right of the applicant. Without this variance, the pro-
posed merchandising program as originally thought of could not be accomplished.
The proposed use is compatible with the program established and is a vital
piece of the total picture.
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. The proposed use will be away from any
adjoining bL~ildings and properties.
PUBLIC HEARING: San Diego Trust & Savings Bank - 444 "H" Street - Request for
Increase in Allowed Sign Area
The application was read in which a request was made for permission to attach a
22½ square foot sign on the south side of the existing bank building.
-8-
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location and adjacent
land uses. He also showed an elevation of the proposed sign layout. The sign
w|ll be of charcoal colored cut-out letters, individually attached. The appli-
cants state they need the identification from the south.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
The applicant stated he was in the audience to answer any questions.
There being no comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
Vice-Chairman Stewart commented that the bank building was a credit to the area,
and he sees no problem in granting them this request.
MSUC (Vaden-Stewart) Approval of the variance request for a 22½ square foot sign.
The sign to be designed and located in accordance with the sketch on file.
Further, findings be as follows:
1. There are practical differences and unnecessary hardships within the meaning
of Ordlnance No. 398 as amended which would result in the strict compliance
of the provisions of said ordinance. So stated as delineated below.
2. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to the property
herein involved or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to
property or class of uses in the same zone. At the present time, the free-
standing sign on "H" Street offers no identification to the south. This
building represents the only building to be constructed on the site.
Normally, 50 square feet for both a freestanding and an attached sign would
be allowed for a particular site.
3. Granting this variance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial
property right of the applicant. Without this variance, the applicant would
not be permitted to erect a sign in keeping with the other commercial
buildings in the area.
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. The total sign area is less than the area
used by other commercial buildings in the area; the sign will be conserva-
tively designed and will not protrude from the building surface.
PUBLIC HEARING: Rohr Corporation - Foot of "H" Street - Request to Use Trailers
as Temporary Offices
The application was read in which a request was made to locate a maximum of 25
trailers to be used as temporary offices for engineering work required by new
contracts.
Director of Planning Warren explained the request was a temporary venture to
serve only the Rohr Corporation and not the public. These trailers will be used
for engineering work required by new contracts. The staff would recommend approval
based on this fact and that it will be a temporary basis - a period of 24 months.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
-9-
A representative of the Corporation stated he was in the audience to answer any
questions.
There being no comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared clc~ed.
The Commission concurred that no problem would exist since the trailers ~uld be
in the midst of this industrial complex.
MSUC (Stewart-Smith) Variance be approved for permission to locate a maximum of
25 trailers on the property for a period of 24 months, to be used as temporary
offices for engineering work required by new contracts. This variance will expire
on May 12, 1968.
Further, findings be as follows:
1. There are practical differences and unnecessary hardships within the meaning
of Ordinance No. 398 as amended which would result in the strict compliance
of the provisions of said ordinance.
2. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to the property
herein involved or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to
property or class of uses in the same zone. The ordinance was intended for
isolated trailers on commercial and residential lots. These trailers being
in the center of a large industrial complex will have no relationship to
adj@cent properties.
3. The granting of such variance is necessary for the preservation of the sub-
stantial property right of the applicant. Without this variance, the applicant
would be forced to construct permanent facilities to solve a temporary space
problem.
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. The proposed trailers will be located at
least 300 feet from any other properties, and the use involved is for 24
months maximum.
PUBLIC HEARING: Mrs. Barney Sell,son - 465 "F" Street - Request for Reduction in
Front Setback
The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction of front yard
setback from 30 feet to 25 feet; with an additional 4 foot projection for the
second floor; and an additional 4 foot projection of a partial roof overhang.
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan and a perspective of the pro-
posed apartments. The main floor will maintain a 25 foot setback; the second floor,
21 feet, and the partial projection of the roof overhang will project to 17 feet.
Mr. Warren asked that the landscaping plan be submitted to the staff for approval.
He commented on the large pepper tree on the property, stating that the staff feels
this should be maintained as long as possible.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mrs. Carol Slevin, 495 "F" Street, stated she objects to the request for the re-
duction of setback. She noted the other apartments on the street and their setbacks,
-tO-
all requiring either 30 feet or 25 feet, and felt the circumstances have not
changed on this street to warrant granting the applicant less of a setback. If
the setback reduction is granted, it will also obscure much of the view she now
has.
Mrs. Barney Seligson, the applicant, listed a number of other apartments in the
City maintaining a 25 foot setback or less. She then discussed the landscaping
for her proposed apartments, requesting she be allowed to remove the pepper tree
on the property, and replace it with a suitable tree. She stated the pepper tree
was not only a nuisance to maintain, but it would also obstruct the view from the
apartments. Mrs. Seligson added that she once had a pepper tree on the street where
she previously lived and the Park Department was quite happy to have it taken down
and replaced with another tree. She declared she would be happy to again work with the
Park Department and replace this pepper tree with one they would approve;
Mrs. W. Sydner, 471 "F" Street stated her objections to the variance as follows:
(1) it will obstruct her view; (2) it will be cutting the setback almost in half;
this street has always maintained a 30 foot setback and this proposed development
is in the middle of the street; (3) when she purchased the house in 1946, she was
assured by the real estate agent that the setback of 30 feet would never change;
(4) the applicant will not be living in the apartments, merely building them, so the
change in setback will not affect her as it will the property owners living on the
street.
Mr. Charles Sydner, 560 Casselman Street, and Doris Sydner, 495 "F" Street, objected
to the request stating they felt a 30 foot setback provided more lawns and green
areas in front of the homes giving the street a nice appearance.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
Member Vaden saTd he liked the design of the apartments, since it was appealing
to theeye, having this projection of the second floor.
Vice-Chairman Stewart commented that he has long felt that R-3 property carries
a much higher value, frontage-wise, than does R-1 property, and to maintain a
30 foot setback here is not right; it would be bad planning. Originally, this
property was zoned R-1 and a 30 foot setback was not excessive; however, time
does change things, the property is now R-3 and to require a 30 foot setback would
not be justified.
Member Guyer remarked that the General Plan advocates that apartments have a 20
foot setback.
Director Warren indicated that most of the apartments on this street maintain a
25 foot setback; however, there is a mixture of single-family homes here. Chairman
Stevenson suggested the entire area be studied to see if a setback could be
established that would be common to all of them. Vice-Chairman Stewart said he is
in favor of the staff doing a study of setbacks for all the older areas in the City.
Member Adams commented that this street is in the process of being converted to
multiple-family use and it is entitled to be built up according to the rules of
multiple-zoning.
Director Warren discussed the existing tree on the property. He commented that he
-11-
has a degree in landscape architecture, and can state from his experience, that
a tree always enhances the appearance of any property. Unless there is some plan
to widen "F'~ Street in the future, and he knows of none at this time, Mr. Warren
~ indicated that the Park Department would have no desire to eliminate this tree.
He added that the one objection to widening any street is the fact that the existing
trees must be cut down. He further added that if the Commission wants the tree
replaced, the Parks and Recreation Department will look at this and the staff will
work with them and the applicant to have an appropriate tree substituted here.
Chairman Stevenson questioned whether this tree might prove to be creating a
traffic hazard. Mr. Warren stated he will look into this; if it is a traffic
hazard, then it should be removed.
MSUC (Guyer-Adams) Variance request be granted subject to the following conditions:
1. The existing pepper tree located in the parkway at the west end of the lot
shall be inspected by the Director of Parks and Recreation. If it is deter-
mined that the tree should be removed, then it shall be replaced with another
tree; size and type of tree to be approved by the Director of Par~ & Recrea-
tion and the Director of Planning.
2. A landscaping plan shall be submitted for the area between the building and
the sidewalk, as well as the parkway. (Note: the parkway can be filled with
concrete if a tree well is provided).
3. The setback reduction is approved in accordance with the plan on file .
Further, findings be as follows:
1. There are practical differences and unnecessary hardships within the meaning
of Ordinance No. 398 as amended which would result in the strict compliance
of the provisions of said ordinance. So stated as delineated below.
2. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to the property
herein involved or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to
property or class of uses in the same zone. The property directly across the
street has a 25 foot setback with the same zoning. The General Plan recommends
a 20 foot setback for apartments.
3. The granting of such var~nce is necessary for the preservation of the sub-
stantial property right of the applicant. Without this variance, the applicant
would not be permitted a setback similar to other apartments in the area and
would be required to maintain an unreasonably large unusable area.
4. Granting this variance will nqt be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property improvements in the zone or district in
which said property is located. Other apartments enjoy a similar setback, and
only a portion of the second story will extend further to add a more pleasing
architectural feature.
SUBDIVISION - Les Chateaux - Tentative Map
Director of Planning submitted the map noting the location as east of the Inland
Freeway (Route 805) and north of Princess Manor Unit No. 4. This subdivision will
also provide for the northerly extension of Oleander Avenue from Princess Manor.
-12-
The subdivision contains 64 acres and is proposed for development into 289 single-
family lots. This subdivision was the subject of a workshop session that was held
a week ago to discuss slightly new concepts in land development in Chula Vista, one
of which would be allowing a density development in an attempt to preserve natural
topography. Most of the subdivisions today are taking place in the hillier lands,
rough topography, natural canyons, etc., and some of the developments that have
taken place have ignored the natural topography. A question which will have to
be answered by both the Commission and the Council pertaining to future develop=
ments is whether they should try to conform more to natural topography, or whether
a ,d~veloper could change the natural topography in whatever manner may be desirable,
providing that he properly recovers the slopes.
Mr. Warren explained that when the map was first submitted, the staff saw that the
development of the lots conformed to property lines with only a little regard to
retaining the topography. He indicated that when a developer buys a piece of
property, he wants to get the maximum use of the property that he can, and with a
balance of cut and fill, he can utilize almost every piece of it, with rare
exceptions.
Along the northerly edge of this property is a prominent canyon which will be
filled in leaving a corner at the northerly edge for a drainage channel. There
is also another canyon at the east side of the proposed subdivision which would be
filled in for development.
Mr. Warren stated that previously, maps were judged on their circulation, lot
patterns, etc., with little regard to cut and fill. The Commission could point
out that based on good design and proper utilization of land, if the canyons are
to be developed, it should be some different type of development. Another approach
would be a modified cluster approach - allowing the subdivider to decrease his lot
size, utilizing the more level land and staying out of the canyon area. Another
approach is the planned unit development which might allow a different mixture of
land use and densities, such as apartments, single-family and rural houses, etc.
However, for this particular development, single-family lots are proposed, and an
effort should be made to continue the type of street pattern and general develop-
ment that lies adjacent as much as possible.
As Planners, Mr. Warren added, they feel that natural canyons have a certain amount
of beauty and recreational use, also helping to solve some of the drainage problems
and making development for the subdivider himself somewhat more economical. With
this in mind, the staff asked the developer to submit another map, which he did,
requiri~g smaller lots, staying out of the canyon areas.
Upon examination of the map, the Commission will note another canyon which, because
of the development to the south, will have to be filled in and developed in order
not to form a pond.
The subdivider is proposing lots as small as 5400 square feet; at the Commission
workshop, 6000 square feet minimum was suggested. The Commission indicated concern
about the pad sizes, the workable lots, and the general appearance of this cluster
development.
Mr. Warren further added that the staff now feels that it is time to try one of
these developments, as an experiment, and see what happens. It may be, that they
will agree that it whould never have been done, but there are many developments in
the City that most will agree shouldn't have been done, and these were developed
according to the ordinance. If the Commission agrees that this should be done, than
-13-
the records should show that this is not something that should be construed as a
precedent, since they may well never again grant it.
Director Warren then declared that the staff has a list of recommendations for this
map, as submitted, which could be submitted to the Council as conditions of approval;
however, they are recommending that the matter be continued and that the applicant be
requested to apply for a variance. This should be heard at the same time as the
revised map and would give the people in the area a chance to come in and voice
their opinions on it.
Chairman Stevenson questioned whether there would be any means of preventing the
development of those areas, say 5 years from now, of the land they now wouldn't
be using. Director Warren stated that by one means or another, it should be left
in a permanent open area. The subdivider may wish to dedicate it to the City; how-
ever, this should be discussed with the Parks & Recreation Department since there is
a possibility that the city may not want it. Otherwise, a homeowner's association
should be formed to permanently maintain the open space. Member Adams remarked that
this same situation would apply to adjacent properties. Director Warren agreed and
again declared that this canyon should not be developed.
Mr. Dennis Wittman, 925 W. Main Street, E1Cajon, one of the owners of this property,
stated that this canyon ties in nicely to the Greg-Rogers Park. He stated this was
not the final map - the idea is to make a usable building pad so that a module house
(50'x50') could be built on it, maintaining the required City setbacks, proposing
as a minimum a 50'x90' level pad area.
Mr. Wittman explained the nature of his proposed development discussing some of the
slopes as blending into natural ground; they would flatten these slopes but
instead of using the conventional 1½ to 1 cut slope and the 2 to 1 fill slope, they
would go to perhaps 3 or 4 to 1 foot - in this way it would blend into the natural
ground. The density of development would be calculated on the basis of 7000 square
feet per lot.
Member Vaden noted that Oleander was being projected for the north-south arterial
traffic and wondered if some provision was going to be made for the east-west
arterial traffic.
Mr. Wittman declared this was taken into consideration - in both maps - noting the
map with the smaller lots; with the extension of Oleander Avenue, the first street
looping around it is a collector street and follows a ridge to the east. Various
alternate routes were discussed.
Mr. Warren indicated that the staff will thoroughly review the street design when
a revised map is submitted.
Chairman Stevenson brought up the qcestion of what happens if a property owner only
owns a 10 acre parcel, 7 of which may be in the canyon. He will not have the
flexibility that this developer has. Mr. Wittman felt this would be a matter of den-
sity - there are many ways to develop this. He could go to multiples or any higher
forms of density development which would create the overall end result. Director
Warren felt this was a good question to take up with the Parks and Recreation
Department since it might require some acquisition on the part of the City. It
is unlikely that anything other than single-family homes would be appropriate here.
Vice-Chairman Stewart declared he felt the proposal was a good one and he would
suggest the staff and the developer proceed with finalizing a tentative map which
-14-
can be brought back to the next meeting with the advantages and disadvantages,
keeping in mind that the Commission is not setting a precedent, it is merely
an experiment. He added that the Commission would not be approving any more
of these developments until they are sure they are on the right tract.
MSUC (Stewart-Adams) Action be continued on this map in order to concurrently
consider this map with a variance application for smaller lot sizes than that
allowed by the ordinance, which the subdivider indicated he would file.
Request for Waiver of Public Improvements - California Auto Wreckers -
200 W. BayBoulevard
Director of Planning Warren read the letter requesting a waiver of the install-
ation of public improvements. The Division of Engineering has recommended a
waiver since the improvements would be extremely impractical in view of the State's
plan to widen Montgomery Freeway and remove all existing improvements at this
location by 1969.
Mr. William Harshman, Principal Engineer, stated a deferral would not be feasible
in this case, since after widening the road, about 75 - 80 % of the property
will remain; however, the structures would have to be relocated and the whole
development built up again from scratch.
MSUC (Stewart-Guyer) Approval of the waiver of public improvements.
SUBDIVISION - Palomar Plaza - Tentative Map
Director of Planning Warren submitted the revised tentative map stating it has
been before the Commission two or three times in the past five years. The map
concerns a 15 acre parcel located at the easterly terminus of Pal omar Street,
adjacent to the proposed Inland Freeway (Route 805). It will be subdivided into
30 residential lots and 2 commercial parcels. Mr. Warren explained that the map
also provides for the northerly extension of Nacion Avenue which will serve as a
collector and freeway frontage road for the area. Palomar Street will have to be
continued on to the Freeway. Mr. Warren then reviewed the conditions recommended
by the staff for approval.
Mr. William Harshman, Principal Engineer, reviewed the conditions imposed by the
Engineering Division, discussing the possibility of getting Paloma r Street extended
to the Freeway. The Commission discussed the relationship of Pal omar Street to the
subdivision and the amount of work involved in building it. They acknowledged the
fact that it may be necessary for the City to construct a segment of the street to
assure a grade separation with the City.
MSUC (Guyer-Stewart) Approval of tentative map subject to the following conditions:
1. That one-foot lots be provided along westerly edge of traveled way on Nolan
Avenue, and along the subdivision boundary on Palomar Street as appropriate.
2. The property line radius on Lot 12 shall be 25 feet.
3. The general utility easement shall be one foot in width on the 54 foot street
section.
4. Upon that portion of Palomar Street designated "To be dedicated to and improved
-15-
by City of Chula Vista," the subdivider shall install sufficient compacted
fill to:
a. permit construction to grade of the sewage pump station,
b. permit construction of an eight foot wide paved access to the pump
station. Pavement to consist of 2" A.C. on native soil.
c. permit the construction of Pal omar Street without the necessity of
placing further fill upon Lots 23 and 24.
5. The subdivider shall effect a transfer of ownership of the small parcel south
of Oneida, west of Nolan so as to incorporate this parcel with that adjacent
to the west; slope easements shall be reserved as necessary.
6. The paving thickness of Palomar Street shall be three inches as shown.
All other street sections shall utilize a two inch paving thickness.
7. Precise surface treatment to be applied to the existing pavement on Oneida
Street shall be determined by the City Engineer at time of submission of
improvement plans. Such determination shall be based upon the uniformity of
the edge of existing pavement and the extent of patching required for utility
connections.
8. The reference to Lot 1 on the sixty foot street section shall be changed to
read "Lot 2."
9. The fire hydrant and water meter easements shown on the 54 foot street
section shall be designated "General Utility" easements upon the final map.
10. The subdivider shall place compacted fill beyond the subdivision boundary
~n the vicinity of Lot 32 in such fashion as to preclude formation of a
pond.
11. Subdivider shall provide evidence of having obtained slope rights as necessary
from adjacent owners.
12. Subdivider shall provide permanent slope rights as necessary for the pro-
tection of street improvements.
13. Subdivider shall acquire and dedicate offsite street improvements on Nolan
Avenue and Oneida Street.
14. It will be required that extensive underground drainage facilities be in-
stalled along the length of "A" Street. The concept of conducting large
volumes of water on the surface of '~" Street is specifically not acceptable
to the City Engineer.
15. A six foot high masonry block wall or a solid fence shall be erected along
the northerly and easterly lines of Lot 2, or back of an appropriate setback
as determined when shopping center plans are completed.
16. A copy of the lease agreement for a part of the proposed commercial portion
of the development shall be placed on fi~ with the Planning Director.
-16-
17. Approval of this map shall not be construed as approving the lot pattern
shown outside the limits of this subdivision.
18. The typical section for East Pal omar Street shall provide a dimension of
8 feet from face of curb to property line instead of the 10 foot dimension
shown. In addition, a two and one-half foot wide general utility easement
and a ten foot wide tree planting easement shall be required along the
East Palomar frontage of Lots 1, 2 and 12.
Bonita Verde Subdivision - Approval of Dwelling in "D" Zone
Director of Planning Warren submitted the building plans for a dwelling to be
constructed on Lot 9, 4050 Bermuda Dunes Place; the dwelling will contain 2652
square feet. This appears to be the largest one yet in floor area. The con-
struction will have a shake shingle roof, and the design will be compatible to the
others in the subdivision. The staff would recommend approval.
MSUC (Adams-Stewart) Approval of proposed dwelling in accordance with the
supplemental "D" zone.
ADJOURNMENT
MSUC (Vaden-Adams) Meeting adjourn to May 16, 1966. Meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennie M. Fulasz
Secretary
-17-