Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1965/11/01 O !Gi AL M~NUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE C!TY PLANNING COMMiSSiON OF CHULA V:STA~ CALIFORNIA November 1, t965 The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chu[a Vista, California, was held on the above date at 7 P;M., in the Council Chamber at the Civic Center w~th the following members present: StevenSon, Stewart, Smith, Johnsoq, Vade.~, Adams end 6uyer. Absent: None. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Paul Man- ganel'li~ Assistant Planner lerrell, C~ty Attorney Li.ndberg, C~ty Emg:neer Co!e, and Principal Engineer Harshman. Associate Planner Oirector of Planu, ing Warre~ i~troduced the new Associate Planner, Paul Ma~ganel~i. APPROVAL OF MINUTES City Attorney Lindberg asked that the last statement he made under '~Orai Commu~iCa~iocs concerning the 19i! Act on the tr!a~g~e-shaped parcel on land on Mo~s and Naples be omitted from the m~nutes as this statement was made in jest. M~. ?erreira, t~e o~ne~ of the parcel, agreed. MSUE (Johnson-Vaden) Minutes of October 18, 1965 be approved, with the omissio~ requested by C~ty Attorney Lindberg. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS PUBLIC HEARtNG~ Majestic Development Company ~ Hilltop Heights Subdivision - Sign and Sales Office The application was read ~n which a request was made for permission to erect a ~gn measuring 150 square feet to advertise the subdivision, and to Use Lot 14 as a sales office. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the locatlion and adjacent la~d use. The sign wi]! be a temporary o~e measuring lO" x 15~, The staff would recommend approval w~th the usua] conditions for subdivision slgn~, as delineated io the staff reporb This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr~ James Patten, representing the developers, was present to answer any questions There being no comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed~ MSU¢ (Adams-Guyer) Conditional use permit be approved subject to the following condi- tlons~ 1. That the sign and sales off'ce be allowed for a period of one year or until the homes are sold, whichever is first. T~at the garage, ~f converted in any way for office use, sba1! be corverted For vehic~iar use prior to the sale of that particular f'urther, find~g~ be as a. T~at the 9ra~t~g of t~e conditional use permit wilt qot be mate~ia~iy detrime~tai to the public bea~:th, safety, or welfare, gone of the factor~ ~r,vo]ved wou;d be p'e~,~t~ 'he ~ize of the subdivision is.~ that it wi!i -or c~eate ~n unusual vo~urr~ o~ gf,eF~cter of traffic. The ch~rac~erlistics of the u$e p~opo~ed are reasonably comp~t~ble with tre types of rise pe-m~tted ~n t~e ~rroundi~9 area:s~ The use w~l~ be a temporary one ar:d the subdiv~:~io~ site, and !s typical of such permits 9ranted in ail new subdivisions FU~LiC ~iEAR!Ng: C:ambr~dge 2e~'ei;opment Company - 344 arid 364 "? Street - Sig-'~s a~:d Sate~: Office The appl[catio? was -ead [~ which a request wag made to erect two sebd,v~:s~o~ advert,~-9 signs, 32 square feet each in the subd[vis~o~, and to use Lot 2;3 as a sa!e:~ ot~ice, Director of P]a~xin9 Warren submitted a p!ot plan noti~9 the iocat~o'~ o~ the subdivi:sioi:: the !ocation Of the sig~s a~d sales off~ce~ a~d the adjacert ut:es. ;;e grated tee quest was common i~ all ~ew subdiv;[sio~s and thc ~taf~ would rec:omme~,d approvai hosed the same ~ond~t~ons approved for the p~ev]ous request. ~his bei~9 t~e time and place as advertised, the p~btic heari~9 w~ opened, There being '~o comme~z, esther for or agg~st, the hearin9 wa~ oeciared clo~ed. MSUC ($tewart-Vade~} C~nd~tio~a! use permit be approved subject to the foi~ow!~9 con- d]tlons: T¼8t the si§n a~d sales o¢fice be allowed fora period of one year or unt~i; homes are sold, whichever ~s 2. That t~e 9ara9e, ]f converted i¢i a~y way for office u';e, sha]~ be converted for vehicular use prior to the s~le o¢ that partrcu~ar dwe~]in9, 3. ~hat the signs be ]oc~ted i~ accorda:Rce with the pia[ o~; fiie in the P~aonTq9 3epart- Further, findings De as a That the 9ra~tin9 of the cood~t]ona] use permit wi~] not be mater!a]iy detr~ment~i to the public heaith, safety or we]fare No'!e of the factors i~volved would bt present. T'he size of the subd~ivis]or is such that it wi]i not create an unu~ua~ VO]dme Or character of traffic b, The craracteristics of the use proposed are re=so)~bly compat~,ie w~th the types of use permitted ~ the surrouqdin9 areas ~he u:~e wil~ be a temporary o~e and or the $ubd~v~s:o~ ~;te, a~d ;s typlcal of such permits 9ranted ~ 8[I n;ew ~ubdivision:. _ PUBLIC HEARING: Wo~M.F. I~vestment Corporation - Northeast Corner Telegraph Canyon Road and Halecre£t ~r~ve - Servilce Station in C-1-D Zone The application was read ie which a request was made for permission to construct operate a service station at this locat~ono 0~rector of Planning Warre~ submitted a plot ple~, noting the locatloe, adjacent land use and zo~lng~ The parcel measures i50~ x 120'; setbacks on Telegraph Canyon Road are 10~ and on Halecrest Drive, 15', Mr, warren referred to the iarge sketch of the statio~ iqdicat!n9 the applicants are pr,opos~;~g to constract a Shell Service Station here, raach ty~e, with a white rock roof, They~have ir;d~cated some form of landscaping on the s;te; however, Mr~ Warren suggested th~s be expanded according to the staff's recommendation The white roof was discas$¢d ard Mtn Warren auggested this be changed to a dark roof or simulated shake shingles because of the glare that would ~e prominent to the homes a~ove this site, The canopy over the pumps wiii be 24' x 50" with 26~ between the po:~t~ and w~l] be 13'6" to the edge of the cave from the ground. The Commiss[o~ d~$cussed a fence: or block wal't arou~.d the rear of tk~s site; however, Mr. Warren felt th~s would s~cve no purpose since there is a considerably steep bank along the back of the shoppiSg center slte, and a fence or watl would onJy serve to encourage storage of materials. The nearest service station to thi~ site is approxi= mately one-quarter mJJe west. This being the t;me a~nd place as advertised, the ~ubllc hearing was opened. Mr. C. Lefebvre, representing the Corporation, reminded the Commission this site wil~ b~ a part of the neighborhood shopping center. They agree to the landscaping proposed by the Director, and as to t~e char,ge of roof materials, he stated that the simulated shake shlngies do not work out very weJt, and tqey wouJd prefer to use a dark rock. They will have trash conta~mers at the back of tr~,e station, and prefer eot to have wa~l here as they would llke the area as an open access to the people going ~nto the Center. Mr. Lefebvre added that the service station will be going in immediately, but that he did not know exactly when the Center will start construction; however, he umder- stands that several leases have bee~ made~ He further ~sked that the Comm~ssior,: take into considerat~on~ (1) the site is a corner of a neighborhood shopping center; (2) Fa~e crest is a primary street; (3) t~e freeway adjacent to thi~ site will not go in for another 3 years. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearir.g was declared Mr. Lane Cole, City Engineer, stated the driveways were subject to City Code ard Cit~ standards. He declared that, ~F feasible, he wouid s~ggest the culvert be constr~cted to carry a 50 year storm dr~n Mr]-Zefebvre commented that t~ey had retained an Engineering firm to study this problem and construction wil1 be based o:r~ t?e 50 yea~ stc. rm study Member Adams said he fel~ a r~eighbornood shopping center was the proper place for a service station, but he took i~sue with the s~ze of the canopy proposed for this stat~o ~e advocated the applicants should e!![minate this ~arge one ar.d substitute a smal~ caropv. _. Mr. Lefebvre indicated the canopy wii'f just cover the pumps aiqd four cars (two or each side of the pumps). The c:e~opy~.~" r,eeded for coveri{,9 and for 1!ght f~xture~, besides addln9 a lot to the architecture o~ the buildin9~ -3- Member Adams declared he viewed the canopies on both the other service stations on Telegraph Canyon Road - o~ "L'~ a:-d ;~acion, and the one o~ the corner of "L" Street unattractive because ~t was so ~a~ge; however, the one on the corner of Naclon is smaJl[ and quite compatible to the residential area~ O~rector Warren commented thst the staff wouJd be ;n favor of this canopy siqce it does carry out the Jines of the b~]~di~g better and would shield iight from adjacent res~de,~ce~, Member Johnson discdssed the stor,ege of materials and felt that no material should be displayed outdoors I everythir~g shouid be under canopies or ~ndoors~ MSUC (Vaden -Johnson) Cond~tiona~ use permit be approved subject to the foliowing conditions; Tmat the planting areas be expanded and revised ~n accordance with the plans sub- mitred at t~e Commission meeting; trata Jar,dsc~pe pla~ be subm!tted to the Director of Planning for approva~ That the ~oofi~g material om the station be changed from the white rock to a dar~ar color, or that the simulated shake shingles be used. That sales be limited to those normaJJy considered incidental to serv;ce station needs, and that al!l such displays be confined to within the building or beneath the canopJed areas and no outside storage sh~ll occur 4, That all llght~ng shalJ be designed ~n such a manner that Jt wii~ not projec~ toward -- adjacent residential areas. Design and capacity of the drainage cuJvert to be s~bject to the approve1 of the City Engineer. 6~ That sig~s are subject to co~ditions OF Variacce ~o~ 65~43~ Further, findings be as foJ~ows: a, That the granting of the conditional u~e perm~ wii] not be material!y detr~menta! to the public health~ safety or we]fare~ since ~one of the factors as deJi~eated in the ordinance w]~ be significantly present~ ~e or~ly pos~:ib!e consideration would be the hazard occasioned by the unusual volume or character of traff[c~ ~qd Jf the methods of access ~o the service ~tat~on are properJy hand~ed, this shouJd ~.~t be a significant problem since it wouid ~ie withi~ a neighborhood shopping center a~o traffic wouJd already be present, b~ The character~scic~ oF the use proposed are reasonably compatible with the types of use permitted in the surrounding area~. The site ]~es within a neighborhood shoppir~g center and~ from t~me to ~me, such service stations have been approved as an appro- priate supplement to the ~¢igkborhoo~ services provided in such centers~ ~h[s is just slightly !argerlt~ar~ t~e average neighborhood shopping center ~te~ so the parcel set aside for ~ervice st~t~o~ use w~l~ not prevent appropriate development of the remaining Jando ~h¢ architecture! ~tyte of Lhe service station is such t~at it should blend ir: fairly wail with adjacent reslde!~tlaT use, and th~ landscaping proposed wiJ] help to ~ofter~ the effect of a greaL expanse of paving~ VARIANCES P~BLIC HEARING: W. FDM. F. Investment Corp. I Northeast Corner of Telegraph Canyo~ Road and Hatecrest Dr~ve - R~ductio~ in Setbacks and increase ~n Sign Area The application was read in which ~ request was made for reductlo~s in setbacks for the following: (1) Canopy to be set back 14 feet from Telegraph Canyon Road. (2~ 8' x 8~ (64 square feet) Shel~ rotating Telegraph Canyon Road~ (3) S~ell modular sign 65~ h~gh [320 ~q.ft.) to be located on the northwest corner of the property amd set b~ck 10~ from Ha]ecrest Drive. (4~ Two 3~ x 5~ poster frames set back one foot and to be constructed at locations shown on their plot plan. (5) ~Wo 3~ x 3~ trading stamp s!g~,~ to be ~nsta~ed on floodiigF~t poles at locations shown on the plan. Director of Planning Warren submitted ~ plot p~ao noting the locations of the s~gns. He explained this was ~ a '~D" zo~e a~d restricting total area of s~gns to 50 square feet; however, the Commissioners have bee~ more lenient with service stations. 2irector Warren discussed each sign a~d the total square footage of each declaring that the gra-~d total i~ exces~ of 500 square feet was overwhelming, and justification must be made. He d]scussed the need for the 65 foot mod~Jar sign commenting that the other two stations s little west cf this site do not have such a freewayioriented s~go, This being the time and p!ace as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. C. Lefebvre, represer~ting the Corporation, stated the sole purpose of the large sign was to appeal to the freeway traffic; the ![ntert is LO pull the people off the freeway but in time for them to safely change lanes in order to do so Mr. Don Anderson, associated with Shel~ Oil Company, spoke of the ~eed for the large ~g~ to attract people off the freeway and not only to their service station, but to the shopping center as weilo Mr. Anderson ~boLed the General Plan as advocating th~s site for a tourist-commercial area, He added that once the custom, rs come into the st~t~o~, they will automatically go into the ~nopp~ng cenCer~ Chairman Stevenson questioned their plans for future serv[ce station~. Mr. Anderson said it was a policy w~th al! o11 companies co locate at interchanges with freeways. Member Guyer asked if they had any objection to making their proposed rotating s[g~: stationary~ Mr~ Anderso~ declared t~e company has both rotating and stationary sig~s a~d they would have no object]on to tk;e c o~dit]oq that this particular sign be stationary. Mr~ Lefebvre po~nte~ out that there homes, and that most of the homes have 6 foot h~gh fence~ ~n their rear yards, so t~e sign would not be too object~onabie~ Mr. Boll~,ng, a resident ]~ the ffa]ecrest Subdivis~q~, questioned whether this proposed large sign would b!ock any of the res]dents~ view. *i~e ~tated they primarily bought kome~ in this vicinity becaase trey were v~ew Director Warre~ remarked that the residential lots do step up and c,onti~ually climb; that the s~gn would not "block" their v~ew bbt it could be offensive~ The s~te for th~s service station is in a neighborhood shopping center; however, the General Plan does not recognize this site as a commercial area. Mr. Warren added that th~s site ~s on a prime arfer~al from which much college traffic w~ be collected. ~e fe~t there should be some s~gn co~tro]~ The Commis~io~ ~s presently wor~ing o~ the ~e~ ordinance, and the section o~ s~9~$ has been taken out for further a~alys~s, as th~ Commissioners felt there was a need for a compromise o One thing tt~t mbst guide the Comm[ssion~ he continued, is the absolute oeed for such ~ large number of s:g~so staff fee]s that by us~n9 the ~ame co,or scheme arm ~al~rg the sig~s dowq, the appilcant can get along with a lot less sign area~ Oi!rector Warren the;~ discussed the 65" modu[ar sign, stating that ~t was ciea~ty a~ advertising sign for She[i as we]~ ~s a d~rect~ona] o~e from the Freeway. He added that the Commliss[o~ should g~ve the staff some guido':ce or d~rection so that they wouid know how to p~oceed in the future control of Mr. Warre~ then discussed the s[gns that the staff would recommend be approved whlch would tote! 138 square feet~ TWO other sig~s on the building, o~e ~pel![~g out and the other "Service i~ Odr 8us[ness" would bring the total to 164 square feet, w~th Commission approval. Mr. Warren the~ d~scussed the setback reductions ~dicatipg the staff would recommend the freestanding sig~ be altowed o~ a 5 foot setback w~th the overhang not projecting beyon¢ the property line, and that the smai~er slgrt De allowed with~i~ the setback are:~ Mr. Mike Clark, representin9 Shel~ Oi! Company, stated that due to the culvert arid the size of the footing required, they feeJ tt~ey ca.not meet the 5 foot requirement, ~he culvert location has not been determined as yet. D~rector War~en declared chat if this - isn't feasibly possible, then ~t won't be required; he asked that the Comm~ssio~ !eave this to the discretion of the ~taf¢. Vice-Cha~rma~ Stewart stated Jt shou!d be 5 f~et, if possible, but ~othing less than zero. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing wes declared ciosed. The 6ommission discussed the iarge sign proposed for ~he site. Vice-Chairman Stewart noted that all other station~ that h~ve had large signs approved have been in a zone; this partlcuiar site wl!t be ~n a ,*eighborhood shopping center~ Member Vaden felt th~s sign shouid be consfdered 8s being in a neighborhood shopp!rg center, and not as on a major arterial; the Commission doesn't k~ow at thi~ time wh~t the future Freeway eletation w~l~ be. Member Guyer fait the large s~gn should be eliminated altogether, e~d the appI~cart~ again make their request at the t~me the Freeway ia built, which wii~ be 8bout years away~ V~ce~Ch31rman Stewart commented that signs For the service station~ west of the proposed freeway have bee~! restricted~ All three stations a~e ?n a ~ighbor~ood snopplng cenEer and ail relat:ed to very f~ne homes. He stated the Commission shouid take a stand ngw, that ~t was not necessary for this ~ervice station to hBve 500 square feet of signage area. Member Adams slated he was ~ fu~l accord w~th the Plannii~9 Director.s recommendations and comments on these signs; they were quite reasortable and by foitowlng them, the Com- mission could set ~ precedent that wou~d aff6ct other ahopp~ng centers. -- MSUC (Vaden-Stewart) Variance be approved for the roi;owing: (1) the freestanding She~'! sig,z at zhe front of the property measuring 8~x8~, ~,o~-rotati-~g standing not h~gher than 26 feet° (2) O~e 3~x5' poster freme pr¢ce _~ig? ir The front ,'~f the property co,raining ]5 square feet to advert;se gasoline p'-~ce, (3) O~e 3 x 3; trad~:rg st~Ip ~;ig~ ~; t~e fror,~ of the property c:orta~mi'~g 9 square fee~ (4) Two 5~ x 5~ Shei~ ?~g~s or the pylon totalling 50 square feet (5) One s~g~ consisting of zhe Jetter~' S~E[L mea~u'r~ng ]"6" x 5~6'' o-~ the bd~Jdi~g total1~og 8,25 ~quare feet~ (6) O~e s~gn measuring ]' x .8~ saying, 'Service ~s Our Bu~'~ess" tota~'bi~g ]8 square feet, (7) That the freestanding s~gr~ ~h¢ ~ ob~erv6 ~ ¢~ve foot setback unless determined infeaslbie by the C]ty Eng~raer 8-~d O~rector of Pi~r~n[ng because of the drainage cutvert, Further, that f~ndlngs be as a. There are pract[ca~ d~fferance~ etd u~;qecessary hardships witF[r the ~l~a*~ng c:f the Ordinance as 8mended which would result [r~ the strict compl~ nee of the proves o':~ Of said ordinance. (as delir, eated below). b. There are exceptionsJ circum~r:ces 8~d coqd~t~ors applicable to the property here- involved or the intenaed use thereof that do r:ot. apply generally to property or of uses in the same zore. T'~:e setbacks as proposed are primarily to keep the buildTn9 back from the fro~t property ];[,ne to essure proper vis[on and traffic s~feLy, a,nd the slgr, s as propo:ssed w~] '~ot ~rterrupt Lh~ ph~'~osophy. ?he increase i~ ;ign area is necessary to delineate Chi% type of service a~ compared to normal ret8~t c, Granting this variance s ,'tece~:l-~-y for the preservation of the substaz, t~ai proper'tv right of the appJ~cart. ~ ~tEOF~C~]j¢, :etb~ck~ ~ commercial areas have been duced for such s~gns and ;it .;seems justified ~ , tn~s c8se. The ~nc*eese in area ~s necessary ~o preserv6 the co-pora~ ~mag~ of the company~ 6ranting (his variance w¢]~ ,*or be m6t6:r~.'~'y detf[menta~ to the public welfare o~ injurious ~o the property improvemer~ts in (he zor;e or d[str~ct in which said propert¢ is located. The signs proposed are w~h~n a c~mercial center and are In with other s;erv~ce stat~on~ ;~ the area~ PUBLIC HEARING: (8ort'd) 6rearer 5out,western Corporat~or: - Southeest Core, er of Street 8~d Fourth Avenue - Request to Allow Apartment G Commerc~a~ jec~ Under Co~:d~t ons Not Provided ~n the Zor]n9 Ordinance ~r6ctor of Pla,'~n~r,mg Werrer~ reviewed the melter st~t;r:9 th~s was continued from she ~eeting, end ~a,,t week, the staff a~qd Comm~'ss~on held 8' workshop meeti~.g~ As a r6su]t of this workshop meet~r,g, the staff wa's asked zo sLudy tk¢ parking problem wlt~ a of rec~mend~r~g some so]dt[o¢ to the proble~T~, arm ~o research wheat w~'s do~ in other cities. The staff, however, has hOE completed their coat,cc w~th other services, but wii'~ do so. l~:s mo"r;~ng, the dase'4oper2 met wlc~ the ;,tell 8nd following was determined: the app!(c~r;t ss request~'-g tnac the bottom fio~r of the north tower be deve]oped w~th comme~s~8~ o, reta~ use t~5,000 ;.quare feeL OF floor aree'.; she next four f'Joors wlch off~;.6:¢l Th6 ":ext sh,-ea floor':-' for ~perzme~ts. Zhe bulildJng will now have three f/~oors~ the fir?c floor for a coffee ~hep and ge~ere] recreatior,,~! use; t~e _~ecor~d f'~o?r for gez~er~l! meeting rooms a~,d the third floor for t~e restaur~nt~ P~rk~g w~ d]~c~z~ed at th s meeting ar, d the developers advocated that they car, increase their perk]ng by tandem parking arid ~ma~]er spaces for sport cars, by combi~.g their p~.k r~g are~ oo the south with that of the Citv"s recreaL oza~ parking ~rea, th~s br]r~g~-~g t~,e tot~'~ up to 450 spaces~ Mr. Warren co~t[nued, ~dd~ng that the staff has tr~ed to w>rk th~s out w~thout brJ~glng the two bu~Jdi'qg$ cio:er together~ He ther s~bm~tted et~ overlay ~l~u~trat~ng the p~ob~ems ~sociated with t~y~rg to p~ovide park~qg ~o~g Center Stree/~ b~rec~or Werren reque:ted the Comm~ssJo~ tinue the matter of parking for two weeks [u~t)~ the next meet~rg) ~n order to give the staff 8~ opportuq~ty to complete contact with other c~c]e~ and the ASPO advisory service a~d to complete ;~r~ ~r,~qy [~ of the ~Lu~t~oJt The ~t~ff believes that stud~c:b should be c~pleted by the developer ~h~ng just ~,ow th~ parking c~n be accomp!]~,hed. Hie said Mr~ Ke~ Lee ~ b~e,~ work .'g or th~$ problem and attempted to come up w~th compromise between the old ord["~rce a~d t~e ~ew ord[~a?'ce~ Mr~ Warre~ the~ rev;e~ed the staff's recomme~dat~or~ for cer~i~ approv~i~ ~t th~ time, so that the deveJoper~ w~ll be able to kave so~ ~de,~ af t~.e LOm[T~FS]O~S feelings O~ the project and start making further p]~5 or~ Mr. Frank Ferre~ra, 3715 Putter 2r~ve, Fre~de~z of the ~3~eater Southwester~ Corporation, stated they feel they can come up w[t.k ~50 p~rk~g ~p~ce~o which wiil suffice for their proposed project~ He d]sc~'~;ed the req0 ~ed d~mer~Jon: for various types of parking aod suggested that some o~ them may be excessive. ~ne r, orth tower would be deslg~ed to have mixed uses~ first f~c,or fo~ commerc~a!, ~;ext four fJoor~ for office u~e, the next tFrce for apartmeqt~, Y~e ~t~de appearance w~u~d '~ot c~'~ge, of the 202 u~]t~ ~ or~g~,~iTy propo~, tk~y w~; *tow go to ~38 uT~ts~ Mr~ then d]scussed tne~r proposed p~rk~;~g ~yout ~tati~g he comes ~p with 489 ~p~ce~ stated they would ~ke a few ba~;<]c th~g:;: reJuced ~etback~; for the park[:~g for the mixed u~es; the distance between: tFe two bu ]d~r~gs ~f p~rk~r~g ~ provided ~;o-~g Certer Street would be approximetely i20 feet, a~d ~t would ff~ve ~ome effect on the park~ng~ Che Commiss~r~:~ d~scussed the ~ma~ :~pace~ 8 ]owed fo~ ~poTt car5~ Mr. rerre~ra ~t~ted that mosE large cities are ~ow c,~;r:<~der~ng a"~d comp y~rg with th~s prov~5~Oq - ~b bt 20 % Of tke parking area to be d~,.~oted Lo ~p,~rts cf;r:, v]ce-Chei' m;:,~ ZLew~rt ~tet~d th~ wa~ ~oo high Mr. Ker~eth Zee~ dur~or ~'.-r~e~ d~sc~.~:e~ :r~ F,~rk~qg ~a~o~t aL ;ength The p.op¢~ed parking of 8: sLa~, a~d ~5c' ~g]e p~rk~rg ¢'o' cum~erc~,~] ~eve~opment was rot he stated. 1'he staff com¢~ bp w ~ 18 p~ce~ o~ Ce~tez ~treet~ '~ased or. t~,e old ordinance, t~e 519 5p~ces wz,~d be ~eq~ ~ed; the '-,ew ord~ a~c:e wo~J require 7~2 The ?~taff fec~]~ there ~ho~'(d bc :~o'-e comprom se ~d rog,'~ fcL~r ~zver[ap~ 3~e of cities: cort~cte:d, Sa~ D~eg~, d~e~ r:~t ~:~w t~ dec~ p~k?,rg t:¢)- re:~d~t~e~ use there ]s ~:o ~sura~ce tha~ ~'- ~tL~ ~r~t w~]~ be o~ hand ~t ~]~ t[me~. The ~t;~ff tried to figure park~r;g acc:.)-d~ g rte peak ho~r~, w~ch ~ betwee:~ ~ ~nd 5 in ~fcer~oo~, end have come up w~c;~ 49~ :~pece~-; Mr, rer~6]r~ :~t~LeS t~"ey car~ pro,~d~ ~50 $pace~. Mr. Lee felt more ~t~c~y ',~d be m~d¢ of the p~?k~qg problem. ~,~ ~r~v[rg the 742 :¢pace~ (ec~ord~g ~.¢~ thC r:ew ':;rd[r~-~ce) t~e f~)w~g factor~ were t~ken ~to co~[deret[o~: ]38 res~de~t~ ~p~-r~mcir t~ ~ ~]~ LO ~ p~r~crg :-~ '- 207 ~peces~ 4 of oFf~ce u~e - ~80 ~p,~ces, b~cc, ct: ~ ';pace per ]00 r~q~zr'c foot of off~c~ ~pace; ~53 spaces for the ret~[~ ~e o~ tt:e f~: t floor b~e:d (~ 5560 ~q~re feet; re~t~ura:-~L spaces ba~ed or; ] ~p~ce pf.r ~_~ %e,:r~; tJ',e c)ffee s~>p wo~ d ~equ~re 20 sp~ces b~,~ed 2700 square feet; cotk~.g fo~ ck:f~ (~crCez o~a~ f~( ["~t;e$ because tb~s w[~ be ~ed p~ mar~ly by the people ~, the' ~o~rt~qe: t~; 56 tp~ce~ fc tke m~et~:g room b~ed o~ 5500 square feet or ! per 100 square feet of assembly ares; this wouid total 742 spsces. The staff, however, believes thii~ ~$ a~: u~rea:~o~abie figure. Mr. Ferreira deciar'ed they would have to abandon the project if the Commission insisted they provide 530 space~: ~t w©d]d mean sr~otker f~oor' of subterra~ea~ parking which cost them one-third of a mill~9* .doillars. Mr. Ferfeir'a then discussed Mr. Lee"s parkirg proposa! in detail sta*i~g ~3w they cs~ o~ne up w~th 492 spaces taking into considera- tion the vacancy factor (10 %~; the resEeura~t wil~ ~ot be opeP untie after 7 p.m., which means they could elim~ste ,126 spaces Fare; the ge~ers~ meeting room will be used to capacity only 2 or3 t~mes a yea~ Mr' George Oweq, ma~agey o¢ the Whlfsper~g Tyees Apartments on Monte ¢~sta, stated that 75 % of the csrs a-e go-~e dL~g ?,e day. Mr. War~en stated thi~ was o~e reaso~ ~hy figuring pa~ki~g at peak ho~-s o::iy was such se :,mportent Factor~ Mr, Bob M~es, co-developer ,:;,~ the project, s~eted t~t using ~he ¢taff ~s figures fo~ parking, t:hey could need 5 scre~ of perking area. He asked that the Comm~ssio~ iook at this f~om a reasonable sta~dpoi!rt, co-s;dering the overtopping uses! Chela Vista Ce~te~, the Civic Ceqter parking area, curb p~rk~g, etc., areas thee ca~ b6 and wilJ be used. Member Adams remarked that there have been three meetings already discussing this FrO~ posed parking; he fe&ls ~t ~houid be left up to the staff and the Comm!s~or: should be guided by their recommend~t~or. "ne Commi¢ssion ~hould give the staff m~re time to study this problem~ fha Commission,: tke~ d~cu:~ed each ~f:aff reco~me~d~t~ o~ for appro~aq detail, a~d concurred on the ~oiiowi::g motion: MS~C (Johnson-Stewart) Variance be approved For the fol!:~wing: l. That permission be granted to Uuitd the two 89 foot ~,[gh towers. That permission be gran!:ed to develop the property with a density of ~ u?¢t per 650 square feet of land sre~ ¢o~ the res~de~ti~l fhat the :/orth tower be developed w~tP ¢et~l use or; the f~rst floor, the ~e~t four f~oors with office use ar;d the top t~fee floor~ w~th apartments. 4. That t~e three-story bu~ding be ai;!owed betwee~ the tw~ t~ers wit~ a restaurant on one fioor, general meetir.g room:; o~ the other floor, and coffee shop and r6cr6~- tional facilities on the first That parking for each use be provided at s ra[io~yet to be determined, but a~ near!y 5~ as possible ~o the pre~;eqt o,rdi!~ance req~irem~!r:~t~ es feasible~ ~he ~¢mber of sp~ce~ to be provided wi~ be decided ~t the !~ovembe,r i5, t965, meetii~;g~ That schematic drawings be pr~p~ed based o~ the abOve arid that before permis~ioq ~o construct the buiidi~g is fi~;aliy giver, th, st the Commission, staff, and the developer meet to ana!yze the ¢i~ 3o]utio~ to either approve ,or d~sapprove it prior to requesting a buitd;i:~g permi;. Further, f~dir~gs be as There are practical diffe-e-cc~; a'~d uneaten;serf hardship:~ within the meani,'~g of Ordirance No. 398 es 6me.;ded wh(cn w,~¢]d fe;utt ;~ [he strict complia~qce of the provisions of said o~d'i~rc:e (3o ~ted 8s de~]~:eated beJow). b~ There are exceptional c~rc~mstances and conditions applicable to the property herein involved or the intended bsa thereof that do mot apply generally to property or class of uses Jn the same zone° T'his property ~s adjacent to the Downtown Area ard should be developed ~ a ma~er contemplated in the 3eneral Plan and the new zoning ordinance being prepared by the City~ It is ~ecessary to grant th~s variance cause the mechanics of our ~ew zoning ordinance do not yet eilow ~at has been termed necessary and appropriate whe~ the generai Plan was adopted~ c, ~he g~ranti~g of suc~ wr~a~ce is ~ece$~ary for the pre~ervatio~ of the substanti~i property right of the app~ica~t~ Unless the variance is grar~ted, the deveJoper wi~i be deprived of an opportunity to p~an for a project for which our ordinances provide but the time the project is built, fe ail probability, the new zoning ordinance providing for such a buiJding or at leas~ a comparable building will be effect within the r]ext year. d. Granting this variar,ee wi]! not be m~ter~ally detrimentaJ to the public welfare or injurious to the property improvements ia the zone or district in which said property is located, It conforms generally to the SKetch PI~ of the C~vic Center-Downtown Areas conceived by the Con~uJta~t$~ ~t ~es within ~n ~-3 zone, and the open space surrounding it will be such that maximum use of the ~and can be made, yet a p/easar~t living environment and re~at:~on~h~ip to adjacent properties is provided. The commercial and off~ce fac~it[es proposed wil~ be a necessary supplement to what now exists in the area; it wi~i be so restricted so as not to weaken Lhe economic structure that q~w exi~t:s~ SUBDIVISION: Princess Ma~or ~:i~t #4 - F~r,~ M~p Director of Pianr~g Warre~, ~Jiscu~ed the fi~a~ map poi~':,tJng out the d]ffer~nce :n the street plan as compared with the original tentative. He stated the changes were not important to the concept of development, but shouJd be notedo The developers now plan a long cul-de-sac (abOUt ]600 feet iong) and because of [ts north-~outh orientation, the staff believes it would be accept~b:e~ Mr. Lane Cole, City Engineer, ~,oted that the right-of-way width~ have been re~¢d to the bare minimum~ Mr. Cole dif:~cussed the various ~treets with the widths propo~ed for this final map as compared with the w~dths o~ the or~g~a] tentative~ ~e the~ ~,oted the d~fferent radii proposed for the ~ubdJv~s!o~ ~treets. Mr~ Co~e then discu~z~d recomme~dations from the Eqgi;eeering O~v~on, ~e ~dded they would approve the r!gkt- of-way width; the utility po]es would be incited ~n back of the sidewaiks~ Cha~rma~ Stevenson asked if they were required to put ir~ underground util]ties~ Mr. Cole declared they were not as the!r tentative map wa:s approved prior to the adopt:ion of the ordinance. Director Warrer~ noted the tot~ set d:~ide for access to the proposed schoo! site. then discussed the quest~of: of imp~ov~i:g Neirose Avenue which the Cou~cll w~li be acting upon at their next meeti~g, he o:r'ig~ra] condifioln was that Melrose woutd be const-ucted when development of U~t5 ~, 2 and 3 were complete; the Commission should once again request the [oumcii to ~mpose this condition before Unit #4 is approved. A fence identical to that a}o~:g Orarge Ave~ue ~::, ~nit #2 snou!d be co-,structed along Orange Avenue in Unit Mr. Ralph Spaid, repre~ent~:~g Prircess Park Estates. discussed the long proposed, stating the differeitce i~ e~evation dnd grading problems caused the required change. ~nless the cul-de-:~ac ~; used, it wi]~ ~eces~tate another crossing of tbe big channel. They would like approvai of the map without imposition of the Meirose Avenue condltion~ Chairman St:eve~r noted ti~,t they couldn't add any requirements on the fina~ map that were not on the ter~tative map° Director Warren remarked th]s was a co',dition of the revised tentative map, wcicr ::hawed :he access from RJenstra Street a~d Metrose Avenue. Mr. ~ A. Smith, stated ~:e ve:~ ir~ t~f:s v~c ,':ity aqd [rquired about the s~te of the fire gtations, Mr, Warren ~c, ted th ,= Oir t~e map, a~d the route she fire equ~pme~t w~ J ~ take. ~r. Robert B~w9a~, a~tor~ey {or P,- r~eS~ P~rk Estates~ ~c., stated the cba~ges proposed here Eo~ght were ~oE subs~a~[ ~ e~oug~ ~o c~a~ge ~he te~ve map, They are ~, agreement w;th the schoo~ s~te~ a~d there w~]~ be no d~f{icu~Ey w~ the siope r~ghts; the drainage requireme~ts~ after dete~m o~o~, wi~ be d~scusse~ ~nd ~mproveme~t p~an~ are c~ple~ed. NeUrone S~reet ~ a' off-site street and ~r ;no w~y ~e~ated to t~s sdbd~v~s~on. Pwincess P~.~k e~s ~ot ow~ th~s sect~o~ of Melrose ,a~der d~$cus~or~; burde~ o~ ~mprov~9 EE~s street t~o~',d be p~aced o~ Ehe prese~t ~ers as ~hey a~e the cus:~o~s as to th~s ~g~ee~er*. A~ ~a~g~q ~dded t~t ~t w~s ~mproper, too remote, beyo0d the Comm~ss~o~r~"~ powe~ a~d t~ey wou~d be ~ter{err~9 w~th a~m~R~sCrat~o~ ~f t~ey C~ty A~toree~ L~,~dSer9 stated t.~:t Ne~ro:,e ACe~ue ~ be~g d~scussed aC Ehe Adm~st~a- t~o~ and Council level, ~ad ~Fe ~o~c~ h~s ex~wessed ~ts desire that t~e Comm~s~o~ consider th~s prob]em~ Mr. ~ :~d0ew9 added t~et i~ wou~d ~ot seem to h~m that acEio~ o~ Ch s wou~d be a~ ~cerfererce w~Eh the problems ~ow go~e9 o~ - ~ would be ~mproper for Ehe Comm~::s~e~ to we]ate t~e~r fee~egs to ~he Cou~c~ a~ ~F~s Mr. Burgae stated tNe~ stro~9]y object co h~v~g ~he Co~ss~oR ~dd t~s Chairmar~ Ste*e'~so~ commented that the {ou~c~ ca~ consider ~h~s co~d~t~o~ or take ~ at ~helr w~l~. NSUC (Guyer-Stewa~t) F~r:a~ m~p be recommended fo~ approv~] subjec~ to t~e fo~'~o~ ~9 cond~ ~o~$: 1. The commission ack~edge:s [~a~ th~s map ~s ~ot ~o comp~eEe confor~ce w,,Lh approved tertat~ve map of P~ncess Ma~or Suo~ v~s~o:'~. Specific d~ffere~ces a. ~tree[ patter~ stree[ w~dths street curve r~d '~ 2. Nap appwova] sh~]~ be co~d t~ored upo'. comp~a-:ce w~ t~e requ~remeets of the Engineer ~n re9ard to t~e oecessary public ~asements for dr~c~ge purposes. 3. Slope r~gNE~ ~s de~e~m~r~ed bF ~he (',?y ~"~9~eer sha~] be subm~Eted ~ fu~y executed form prior to gou~c~'~ cor~deret o' oF the f~ map~ ~. T~e s~reeC frontage show:~ +'~,~ ~o~ 52~ ~d 525 are ~ubs~and~rd ~ ~erms of ord~narce by ~he C~ty E~9 qee~ so ~s ~o provide at ~ea~t 50 feet o~ frontage for ~he 5. Site grading and ~mp~oveme~t p~a~z ~od~c~te t~t grad pg {o~ this ~ubdiv~s~on ~mpou~d surface r~off ~ o~g the ee'te, rly sebd[v[s~o~ boundary in the v[c~ty of iota, 539 ar:d 54~ ~r:e :'ubd v~der ~] mfke adequate provisions as approved by tre C~ty Emg~neer for ~ Or~-~ge system to safe~y co~;duct $~ch s~rf~ce AIl City fees shalJ be pa~d pr~or to Councli consideration of the final map. 7o That lots 52~, 522, 523~ a~,d Parcei "A~ snal~ be reserved for access to, ahd a part of the adjacent schoo~ ~ite to the east, 8, That a fence~ ~dentice~ in type to ~rat aion90ran9e Avenue west of Interstate 805 be constructed at t~e top of slopes at the tear or s~de of tots paralleling Ora~n9e Avenue east of Interstate 805~ Fha p[ec~se location shall be approved by tFe Director of Plann~n9 pt'~o~ to construction. The Commission took co~-iz~ce oF t~e pendi~9 ag[eement between the C~ty and Pr[r~cess Park Estates, I~c., to inst{~] two ~a~nes of Me]rose Avenue from the ~e~ D[e9o Gas ahd E~ectric Company right of w~y so~?, to Pri:~cess Ma~or~ dnJt No. 7° The Commission discussed the fact that at the time a rev~sloe of the origin~a"i tentative was made, a requirement to construct MalTose Was made~ b~t h~s since been obviated, ~'he Comm~ssio~t requests that: u~]ess the sub,!(ct pe~d~g a9reement is consummated, that i~,e Cou~c!~i im- pose, as a condition of appro~s~ of ¥~i[t #4~ the requirement to construct subject sectio~ of Melrose Ave~ue, two ~anes ~ w~dth~ ~t ~ s~a?d~rd acceptable to the bity Engineer. Approval of Romes for Pr'~ncess Mar~r ~t #4 Director of Piann~n9 Warre~ submitted :several renderin9s of t~e proposed homes for un~t, The perspectives show the ~ew homes as proposed, soma with the same finer plans but with different e~evat~o~s, The staF~ finds tfem acceptable with the exception the 9ara9e with the flat roof ~n Model 3031~ At a p~evious meetin9, the Commission approved a model home ~avi,'!9 ~ bedrooms and 1~46 squ~re feet, and the Com~ssio~ cared they would approve the number of these when tFe developer was ready to They are now propos i~9 they be ~]owed ~o construct ]3~2 of ~he total ~umber of the homes in ~it #4 with thi~ mode~; thins is less thiar~ i5 ~ which the Commissior: orig~imaii approved for this ~ize home~ ~he perce~ta9es of these homes proposed are ~n better than ori9ir;a~y approved, Fo~'ty~ out of tMe ~97 homes proposed for this unit, will have ]½ car 93ra9es that may r'o io~9e~ be i~ccep~ab]e, Mr. Ralph Spaid, represe~t!~9 Pri-~cess ~ark £st~tes, stated that i~ the origi~a~ v~ri~:~ce the 9ara9e s~ze was specified. ~e ~dded that: one model has been eliminated comp!ete]y~ and they now propose 37 house::out of the ]97 to have t½ car 9ara9eSo 7hey have bee~ steadily reduc~n9 the ~umber of these homes that wou~d have this s~ze 9ara9e ~ it, The Comm~ss~oE discussed this s~!ze 9~age ~d smat~ home. Cha{rman Stevenson remalrKe~ that a zone variance 9rented Eo bu:ild t~[s particular 9arage was rot intended; was an oversight; that no specific justification for a ]½ car 9ar~9e was offered or acknow]ed9ed. £ity Attorney tind~er~ stated ~e u~ders~ood a v~r;a~ce was ~r~-ted to this developer approvln9 certai~ mode!s some of which did ~ot meet m~n~mum requirements, Each unit was to be constr'ucted~ tt~e developer had to present the number a~d type o~ homes that he proposed for this u'~it~ for £o~m!~sion approva~ Member Johnson commented tFat ~i~ce the {om,~ssi[o,~ does h~ve control over these houses goin9 in, they could eliminate the n~mber of t~!ose having i½ car 9ara9es, {'ha~rmar ~tevenson remarked he wou!d 9o alo7~9 w~:h t~is ~ize garage for the 2 bedroom homes, but not the 3 bedroom° Director Warren stated he d!scus{ed this w~th the developer sometime a9o, and was sur- prised to d~scover that 1½ 9~rege~{ were beir~9 bu~]t~ 7he staff cannot 9ulde the Com- mission a~ t%is time, 3:~ ~ ~,ow n~F oF tPe~e ~omes they should approve~ Units 5 a~d have yet to come in for approvaf City Attorney Li~dberg stated the Commission has already granted a variance for all of tPese models; the matte? of what percentage of these models was to be bu~tt in the d~fferent u~ts was ieft to the discretion of the Comm~sslon. Mr. Spaid now propose¢ a certain amount of these komes to be co~;:~Lructed in this particular unit; the Commi¢ssio;: ca-~ approve more or lesso Mr. Spa~d declared he would ]~ke to get approval of as many of these homes having chis size g~rage, as possible; they wou~d eve~ settle for 50 % of their request. Member Adams asked ~f it wo~d be possible for the developer to eliminate this model home entirely :n the future: Mr. Sp~id stated he w:!l promise to do that. MSUC (Stewart-~yer) Approva~ of home:s :or Pr::cess Mai:or Uniit No. 4 in accordance with plans subm!tted a~d on f~le: Series #2000 - 3 homes 3030 = 37 305O - 45 3~00 -, 7 3300 - i5 3200 - 28 4000 ~ 10 ~800 - 26 5000 -, 25 Approval ~s alao gfven for the s~ze of the garage (336 square feet) for the homes Series 2000 and 3030 (40 homes) w~h t~e stipulation that no garages of this size be built in any future u~its of the subdivi~oqs. Letter from Do Jacquot - 0ff--~ite D~rectio,~al S~9;~ for Seguo!a Towers Apartments D~rector of P~armln9 Warren 8~Ked that this again be cont:i~ued until such time ~$ the applicant is present,, Discussion - Proposed Rezor~-~ f~om C-!-0 to R-3 for Two ~ots North of "~" Street on Wo~w~ a~d Lo)orado Avenues Director of Pla~n[n9 Warren %¢t~m;itted a plot pla~ ~otin9 the location of the lots to be rezoned stating orlg~¢~y, these iot~ were zoned to C-i i-~ order to allow enou9h depth for good development; ~owex,er, tkey row fired t~ey do not need this extra space~ The staff, subsequently, beJie¢e:; it should be rezo~ed back to R-3 to prevent any desirable development or conFe-s[o:r', of dwe!rings, RESOLUTION NO. 383 Re:s~!utio~ of tF, e C~cy P~anning Commiss~o~ Stating Zheir MSUC (Adams-.oh~son} ~,'ter: to C~;~ a Public ~earlng for November 15, 1965, to £o.',s~der R~or,(r~g Property North of "H" Street on Woodlawn D~scussion - Sig~s: Bonita Piaza Shoppin9 Center This matter was continued to the next meeting because the ~ppl~cants were not present,, ORAL COMMUNICAT~ONS Member Vaden suggested the Comr~ssio]¢ make every effort to expedite matters before teem for consideration, He stated man7 people h~ve to sit in the audience for hours before the!r matter comes before tFe Mr. Warren commented that the staff attempts to inform those involved of approximate times of discussion. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Vaden-Johnson) Meeting adjourn to November 15, 1965. Meeting adjourned at 11~30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~l~ennle M. Fulasz Secretary