Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1966/06/06 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CNULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA June 6, 1966 The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California, was held at 7:00 P.M~ on the above date in the Council Chamber at Civic Center, with the following members present: Stewart, Smith, Johnson, Stevenson, Adams and Guyer. Absent~ Member Vaden. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Principal Engineer Harshman, City Attorney Lindberg and Planning Draftsman ~rlsh. APPROVAL OF MINgTES MSUC (Adams and Smith) Minutes of meeting of May 16, 1966 be approved as mailed. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING - Antoinette Tavolacci - 421-423 "E" Street lhe application was read requesting permission to convert an existing duplex into two real estate offices~ Director of Planning Warren submitted a plan of the properly showing existing duplex and two-car garage, general location of property and the manner in which the appli- cant intends to provide parking. Director Warren explained that the parking proposed to be located within the setback, was not in accordance w~th ordinance requirements ~-' and that a variance application for approval of the parking is also scheduled to be heard, he reviewed zoning and land use of adjacent properties, noting that a service station is located on the east, R-3 property north and west and R-1 zoning and uses on the south side of "E" Street~ Director Warren submitted a revised plan for park- ing on the property showing removal of existing garage thus providing adequate area for turning so that cars using the parking spaces on the "En Street frontage would not have to back out into the street. He stated that this would be a matter to be considered with the variance requested, but felt the Commission should be aware of the matter during consfderation of the conditional use permit~ The revised parking plan would not eliminate the need for the cars using Guava Street parking spaces to back out into the street. This illustrates the inadequacy of trying to convert residential use to office use in some cases. This being the time and place as advertised, Chairman Stevenson opened the hearing. Mrs~ Dorothy McCready, owner of property at 197 Guava, adjacent on the north, pro- tested the conditional use permit stating it would be detrimental to the residential use of her property, siting the effect the service station at 4th and "E", adjacent to her rear yard, has at the present time. She asked that if the request ~s gr~mted .~ fenice be ,.eqa'~red erouqd the property, ~d told of her ettempts to get the service ~t~E~on to con,tract ~ fence ~mound their proper~y, which wou~d h~ve~ he~ped the ~it'= M';. Roy M~y~ ~49 Guava, objected to the permit, stating he feeis it ~s s residentiel d~trict ?n,d commcrc~'l use wou~d be detr~me~t.~/I. ~e ~gneed w'it:h Mns~ McCreedy con- ce¢, :g the det:r~ment~l ~ffect the service ~;t¢t~on h.~ on the adjacent propertie~. M,"s. %%~.olacs?, ¢ppl~cent, ~t:~:tea that the effect the serv~c6 station h, ss on her pro~ perry h~:~ been b.~d e~d ¢~ated t:hst for t~?s r6~5.$o~, ~t .~s hard to keep her property rented. She believes the use as a reel estate off,ce will not bother adjacent resi denbial property because ]t will be quieter at night than if it were being t~ved ~he stated that ~veral property owners had s~gned the application, approving the proposed ,use. Ot w~s noted that the request For variance ~hlch ~[tl follow hss the signatures ~ttached, not the conditional use permit 'i'here being no further comment, the hearing was closed. Member ?oh~son sts~ted that the conditions ~mposed on the service station with approval of the permlt, shodld be checked to see if a fence had been requlred. if ~ot, care shou/!d be t~ken ~n the future to see that such th~ngs were required. He stated that: this ~s a fringe area, tqe tots lend themselves to commercial use so long as parking c~n be provided, and that he would not be adverse to approval of the, permit. Member Stewart st,;ted that over the years, there has been ,s~ constant effort to commerc~a! use ~n the g-3 zone ~Iong '"E'~ Street because it ~s a heav~ly-[r~velled sstr'eet ~nd that traffic ~s no just~flcat~on for converting residential buildings to ¢ommerci~l use, ~e ~s opposed to converting residential buildings to th~s use stated th=,t. .~ most realtors are opposed to real estate offices ~n homes, whe, n o.he,_," ,¢ ~re required to locate in commerclal areas. While It is true there ,:~:re prob ems ~n'votve;d, there are other residential areas affected the same way. Chai~'m~ Stevenson stewed he agrees w[th Member Stewart; there have been repe~ted efforts to commerc~at[ze ']ETM 3treat. He feels it would be just extend[ng a pro- blem started by the gas station. ~.ew~rt stated that the other service st~t~ons on that corner ~re ¢dj~cen~ to residential property and must have the same problems. Even wlth modlf~cat~on ]n the p~rkir;g ~ ~ ]t" p,,a,,, ix not good planning practice a~d would only encourage p~rk[ng on the street, further impeding trifflc. Chairman Stever;so~: questloned the need for office space, asking ~f there [sa shortage of th~s type zoning ~ the C]ty, a~d stating that he was of the op[n~on there is MemUer Guyot stated there is ~ot sufficient parking and he doesn't belleve any arrs~ge- ment would be adequate for that type of business. Member ~o nso~ stated that offices are permitted ~n the R-3 zone, with a conditlona] use permit. ~:irector Warre~ stated that is is true they "may be" permitted, bet certain f~ndings must b,e m,sde before the perm]t c~n be granted, and this is what the Commission must determine. City Attorney bi~dberg outlined findings the Commission must make to justify approval, ~t:~t]ng that the ordinance does not [mpiy that those uses ii%ted as permitted with a conditional use permit should necessarily be approved [~ ~Jl cases Member Adams stated thls would set a precedent for further extens[on of commercial uses ~long "E" Street, whlch the Comm]ssion for as long as he has been a member, has trled bo prevent because of traffic conflict and the detrimental affect on adjacent res]der~- rial use. He also does not feel a good parking layout can be devised and objects strongly to the parklng on the west side w~ere al1 car's would have to back out lnto the street. If' ~t were approved, he would insist on the parking layout proposed by -3- the planning stsffo MEC (Adams and Stewart) That the application for conditional use permit to allow conversion of a duplex ~nto two real estate offices be denied and that action is based on the follow~ng findings: The lot ~s not large enough to provide for a suitable parklng arrangement. The use is not compatible with adjacent residential uses. 3. Approval would set a precedent for further extension of commercial uses ~n ex~st~ng resldential bu~ldlngs along "E'm Street. Member Johnson polnted out that the use would be compatible with the service station use to the east. The motion carried by the followlng vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Stewart, Smith, Stevenson, Adams and 6uyer NOES: Member Johnson ABSENT: Member Vaden VARIANCES Antoinette Tavolacci - 421-423 "E'~ Street Chairman Stevenson asked if the public hearing on the application for varlance sub- mltted by Mrs, Tmvolaccl should be held at this time in view of the denial of the conditional use permit. City Atsor~ey L~ndberg stated the matter should be continued to allow time for the conditional use permit to be heard by the City Counc]l Jf appealed and suggested six weeks. MSUC That the variance be continued for slx weeks° (July ~8, ~966) PUBLIC HEARING - James B. Gentry - 1~7t Del Mar Avenue The application was read requesting perm~sslon to construct a second dwelling unit on the rear portion of the property at lO71 Del Mar Avenue, zoned R-2o Plarm~ng Director Warren submitted a plot plan of the property and surrounding area, showing the s~ze of the lot, which has approximately l~,O00 square feet and the ex~st= ~ng dwelling cn~t and garage. He pointed out the zoning of adjacent land, both in the City and County, noting that the proposed development would be allowed under that zoning. He stated that in the R-2 zone, a second unit may be constructed ~f connected as an integral part of the exlstin9 unit and that this was stlpulated because in most instances lots in the R-2 zone are smaller than in the R-I and two separate units wo~id lot leave adequate usable open spaces. Thls being the time and place as advertised, Chairman Stevenson opened the hearing. There being no one wishing to be heard, the hearing was closed. Chairman Stevens or~ asked about the development of adjacent lots. D[rector Warren stated tha~ they ~re developed w~th single=f~m~ly u:~its aFd ~R m~st c~e$ ~re adeq~;e ~-~ ~ size ~o that a second dwe~l~i~g could be placed on them. fie stated ~hat ~n some areas of the City, even ~n R-t areas, owners have been allowed to construct second ~n~ts, or mora~ ~s~ng easements for ~ccess to the rear of lzrge tots. Member $[ew~rt stated thet the present house occupies a very small portlon of the lot ~nd he feels ~t ~ould be good land use. Ch~irn~:~ Stevenson stated he could see nothing objectio~abla = that if the applicant wanted to attach the two unlts he could do so without a vmr~ance and he fee:ls this is a batter layout. MSUC (Guyer and Johnson) That the variance be approved, based on the foll o~ling i. :he lot is I87 feet deep all ow~ng ~dequ~te separ~tlon between t~ two tlng u~ts. ~t ~s ~ot practical to con~ect the proposed n~ construct~o~ to the old e×isti~g house and create a "tacked~on 2. The existi~g house does ~ot land ~tsatf to conversion es a duple×; ~ot ca,not be utilized unless The new unit ~s built separately on the lot. 3. R~'3 zoning exists to the west ~d County R~2-A further to tha ~t©rth ~d south~ alt of which would allow this use° The lot ~ ~rge enough to ~ccommodate the concept of d~w~pm~t prop~s~d~ That the wr~c~ be ~ppr~ved subject to th~ f~ow~g ~. A p~ved driveway (2" ~c~ over ~ ~t~b~ b~se p~r E~g~e~r~g b~ p~t ~ from De~ M~r Av~e to th~ r~r dwe~g a~d a tot~ ~f thr~ (3~ p~ved p~rk~g ~paces sh~l~ b~ provided for th~ ~ot. M~m~m ~dth of ~uch dr~v~y shal~ b~ te~ (~O) f~t~ F~C ~EAR~NG ~ V~c~t DeZu~a - Southwest Cor~r 3.th ~tr~t a~d Ed~e~r~ Ro~d ~ th~ property z~:~d C~ ~ct~r Wa~r~m ~u~m~tt~d ~ p~ot p~a~ show~g ~x~t~g zo~g of the C~t~ ~nd ~d ~r~c~ ~ ~ppr~v~d~ 7~ b~g the t~m~ ~d p~ec~ ~ ~v~rt~s~d, Cha~rm~ St~ op~d th~ h~ar~ng~ Th~ b~g ~ comme~t~, ~ther for or against, the he~r~ng was Ch~rm~ St~v~om stated ~t ~ppe~r~ that th~s property ~i~ ~ot d~vel~p commercially f~ m~y y~r~ ~d ~k~d whether th~ should b~ ~ ~zon~g epp~cat~o~ r~t~r ~ v~r~nc~ a~d wh~t th~ m~ter p~a~ sho~ for ~t. ~ct~r War~n ~tat~d th~s area w~s p~ced ~ a ~d~m d~ity population area (~ c~rr~ct~o~ ~ndic~ted ~ndustrla~ ar~a~ ~d why it w~ zoned commerc~a~ he does not know~ th~ ~t d~e~ ~t ~d ~ts~f to co~rclal d~v~pm~t~ ~ stated that w~th co~tr~c~ tion of the flood control channel, commercial development mlght be feasible. Mr. DeLuc~a stated that there had been an apartment bul]d~ng projected i~n this area and becaune of confusion between Chula Vista, National CJty and County zoning th]s zoning ~eemed approprlate. ~e stated that because of lack of practical sewage d]2po~al nothing has developed in the area. tn order to get some u:~e of the 1aL, he fe!t he could move in a house which would not be so expenslve but that he could afford to mo~re ~t off when ~t is practical end po~s]ble to develop the property commerclal~y. Hembe- Guyer asked ~f this would conflict with the flood control ordinance proposed he h%s no object[o~ if ~t does no~. Director Warren stated the property does fall w~th]n the flood plain area, and th]~ ]s why he had made a recommemd~t~on regarding elevation. M~;C (Ad~ and Stewart) That the var~,~;ce be ~pp~oved, baaed on the following findings: ~'he property ~as an existing dwel~ing ~th residential ~se directly to the east, across Edgemere Road. Because of the ex~t]ng drainage chan~el b~sect- lng the property and proh~b~tlng access onto 3Otb Street, any commercial de: velopment waged be oriented to ~ residential street. Until the new flood contro~ channel ~ developed, this property ]s not ~u[table for commerc~i de~ ve!opme~t. 2. W~tho~t th~s variance there is no market for development. Commerci~c~ development "~ocld require sewer which is not practical at this time d~e to ,~ contemplated ~-- dr~!nage channel near the Sweetwater R~ver bed. 3. Amother ho~e is built on the property and additional dwellings ere located d[rectly to the north and east. Fhet the variance be approved, subject to the following cond]tlons: The proposed u~e is not constructed until the flood controI channel is built or the property ]s elevated above the 50~year flood line as determined by the City Englneer[ng Department. tf determination cannot be made as to the approxlmate ~ocat]o~ of the 50-year flood l~ne in this area, then the propo:~ed e~evation should be no less than that of the existing dwell[rig. 2. No commercial use2 shall be allowed on this parcel (using the Paradlse Creek Drainage Chan~et a~ the western boundary) until the resident]al buildings are removed. 3~ Vne entire area required for the parking of three (33 vehicles ~nd alt of the driveway (m~n~mum IO~ wide) be paved with 2'~ hot asphe]tlc concrete m~x over a ~u]table base as determined by the Engineering Dep~rtrrent. The driveway extend to the exlst]ng pm~vement along Edgemere ROedo ~) ~ Poutou~ & Sar,ato~a Developmer~t Company - LesChateaux Subdivision - Action and D~scu~s]on The application was reviewed requesting reduction in lot sizes from the mln]mum 7000 square feet to ~ m~n~mum of 5400 squ~re feet for lots within the proposed subd~vision. Director Warren r'eviewed pa~t action -publlc he~rir~g had been closed after dlscus= sion at the Hay ~7th meeting and the staff directed to research potential problems. He st~ted that ~1 the process of d~scuss[ng the map w~th the subdJvider it was agreed that ~,. ~s r~ot .ece..~ry for any lot ~n the .,ubd,vl.lon to be less than 6000 square feet. Director W~rren ~nd~cated that a petition opposing the variance, s~gned by ~0~ people representing t20 properties [n Pre.ess Manor Subdlv~slon hmd been ,ce~ved ~ ~ three or~ =no t protests made to the effect that it ~s improper use of a varL~mce ,~n,d protestilr:g the small lot s~zes [:'¢ the area, ~]rector ~arren stated ~he reason behind this was an attempt ~n]t~ated primarily by the staff to retain canyoe ,3rear, the more significant ones, such as that one running betwee~ th~s subd~v,!s[o~ and the 6regg Rogers School P~rko He stated that beck:use q~estio~s were ra~sed as to whether or not the preservation of the canyo~ area would meet w~th the desires of the Park and Recreat~o~ Commission ~nd whether or not the ~* c;:;yo should be retalned by [he subdivider or dedicated to the City, the matter had been continued, The Park and Recreation Commission had approved the concept unardmously, recognizing that by doing aa they wou~d be committing themselves to future requests of the Council that some canyon area should be purchased ~f ~ot poss~ble to acquire as part of an exchange ]n reduction of lot s[zes and ded]c~t]on, He stt(ed thls ~s not a typical cluster or planned-unit development, but ~ther s m¢~p ~[th reduced ~ot s~zes, ~n o~e effect clustering lots on top of the more level ground ~nd leaving the network of canyons for generat ope~ space, He stated the Police a~d F]re s~epartme~ts were cont=,ct~nd the ir potential problems were d[scus:edo Both dep~rtme~ts indlcated r0o parE~cu'~ar problems created if veh[~ c~ ar access ca~ be provided, which c~n be done, Fha ?!re Ch]ef po~i~ted out that the primary problems come from combustible pla~t ma~er~al or dry grass, which does no~ appear to be a problem of any degree here, fie stated that probably some form of 9round cover planted ,adj,s~cent to rear lot l[~es would be required, but a~y other pla~ti~g a~d development of canyon areas would of course be up to the Park and gecres~tio~ Corrrn~ss[on; the staff would l~ke them to stay ~n pretty much of ,s state, The Police [;apartment stated no more'problem than at present -, w~]] require some patroli~g ~s!~,d observ~t~Ono The Chief Ad~:ir;~str,~tlve Officer and the City Engineer raised the q=eat[on which fates to the v~r]a~ce request but more to the subdiv~slo~ itself -w]th development staying out of the cs~yo~s= ~f they are ~ot to be fliled, there w~ll be segments of street i~volved which w~ll have to be constructed - who does th~s and wh~t wi~l the cost be~· ~he Englneering ~epartme~t w]i/ prepare ~ cost~a~,!, ys~s of tc~s before consideration by the 6ounC[lo It is obvious that portions of street on city land w]il have to be improved at the cost of the City, O~e of the po~nts raised by the planning st~ff was whether or not we should fill in c~nyo~s so streets cs~ be built by the subdivider, or is there some basis for saving the canyons other ope~ areas through which [t may be necessary for the C~:y to construct tions of street~o !'he '3our~c~l w~ll, of course, have to decide th]s, but ~ould like an op~o~ of the Comm~s~Ono b~rector Warren stated the staff reconTaends approval, asklng that ~he lots be reduced to r~ot less than 6000 square feet:. ~e reviewed the staff recommendations. Member Ad~ms stated that throughout th~s area, here and ~n San Diego, where canyons &re not developed, the streets skirt the edges of the canyon with no plan to run shrougD the canyon. Aside from some slight access to the open area indicated on this map, there ~s no street ind~cated to run through the canyon, so it doesn't appear to ~'~ be a matter for consideration now. D~rector Warren stated ~his subject relates to the map as wel~ as the variance and he d~scussed the tentative map, statlmg the g~nal temt~t~ve had ~nd~cated development dow~ ~nto the canyon, wlth the carwon being - 7- ~ f~l!ed and Oleander go~ng north to the boundary of the subdivision, but that the pre- sent m;~p sh~s Oleander being realigned ~n a d~fferent manner. He stated ~t is posh s~ble that Olear~der could go through wltbout defeating our purpose for saving the canyon. Member Guyer asked what ~s the point of trying to retain the canyon if a street would run through ~t. D~rector Warrer~ stated ~t woul6 depenJ upon the s~ze ~f the cany~)n~ and that th~ larger canyons wilt h~ve to h~ve streets running through them ~f adjacent land is to be developed. ~t is not intended that these canyons shoctd become highly developed parks; ]nstead~ they would offer v]sual open space and be used for hiking, r[di~g~ playing, etc. A~emoer Stew~r~ and Assoclate Engineer Farshman discussed the problems of f~lI~ng the canyon for Oleander to go through~ Englneer ffa~'shma~ stated that it has been studied and that following contours through, it wouB involve a 7~ grade, which is not to<~ bad. ¼e stated that a comprehensive study ~d not been made yet for Palommr. Member Stewart stated thac he feels b~)th ssreets should go through, def[nltety Palo-' mar, whether or ~:ot we can save the open space. ~[rect:or Warre~ and the Plannlng Commisslo'~ concluded that [t would be necessary for these two streets to traverse the canyon in some manner. Ch~Jrma~ Stevenso~ asked ~hat the plans would ~e for devetoplng the canyoms [f they are s~vedo D~rector Warren stated that the Park mhd Recreatlon Commission raised th[s questioq. In th~s case ]t]s proposed that it be dedicated to the City, the go~l w~utd be to get the whole network of canyons; [t would be desirable to reta~m it in as natural state as possible : perhaps developed into miniature hiking or' r~6lng tr'aJls or areas for ptay. He stated that the advantages to the residences of the natural-state canyon would exceed t~e advantage of havlng 7000 square foot lots, and would eliminate the need for concrete drainage channel. Member ~;ohnson stated he ls in f~vor of the philosophy involved and hopes all the problems have been d]scussed, but he ~ould like to see something in the plan for pqthways into the canyons so that access will be guaranteed. Olrector Warren stated he does not believe it will be necessary or beneficial to have pathways from the subd[v]~iono Access should come from the streets that would lead into ~t: or traverse it. These canyon areas would be used by people from areas other than ~mmedlately- adjacent homes, and access could be controlled if furnished by streets~ Member Smith asked how far such a policy could be carrled out? As you go further east a~cd land gets steeper; ~s each subdiuider com[~g ~n asking for reduced lots and g[vJng the surplus land to the City and how much can the Clty afford to malnta~n? Director Wa-ran ~tsted these canyons would not be ~hat he conslders a park, but probably would be included in that category because of being c~ty lamd, etc. We c~rsnot retaln every c~nyon arem emst of town [n th~s manner and the Park and Recreation Commission does not Walnt every c~nyon. Each case would have to be consldered ~nd~vldually and judged on [ts (x~n merits. This particular canyon lends itself to retention because of re~ tationship to Gregg Rogers School Park a~d the amount of level area in Jt:s bottom. zhe Commlss~o~ dlscussed possible problems from retention of canyon areas. Member Adams stated he a~proves the ~dea and believes the problems can be solved. He looks upon thls as one segment of cont:inu[ng development which will permit preserva: t:~o~ of the entire canyon ~s ope~ space, ~nd feels that unless we make it clear that the entire canyon is our goal~ there ~s :~o value [n retaining thls portion. ~'h:e Commlss~on discussed total subdlvlsion area, lot slze, frontage, pod slze, grad= ~ng controls and setback frontage. MSC ,~Ste~,art and Ad,ams) That the variance be approved for reductlon i~ lot sizes fr~m 7000 squmre feet to a minimum 6000 square feet w~thin the proposed LesChate~ux ~-~ Ssed]viaion, based on the following f~dings: l~h~s property is generally more rugged th~ that to the west amd involves two c~nyons which c~n~ot properly ~ccommodate home s[[es. -. ~.,t this variance, the appl[c~t ]s depr~ved of developi~g a denslty es zc~}e,d or ~s required to fill natural c~nyons in a m,~n~er serving as an ,aesthet!s detrlm¢~nt t~ the area. 3o ~;r'~nf:i:~g this variance ~]ll not be mater~lly detrimental to the public welfare or izjurlo~s to the property or improvements in th]s d]str]ct be= c~use the density of developr,~nt w~ll be the same as Jn adjacent subdivisions. ~n addition, open space ~ill be preserved in a manner which w~ll enhance adja= cent development. The building pad s~zes will be approxlmatety the same as for 7000 squore foot lotso That the variance be gr,~ted subject to the following condltions: i. The ~pproval of ~n acceptable tentative and final map reserving subject canyons as usable open space and showing that e proper l[v]ng environment can result with t~,e reduced lot a[ZeSo 2. Generally, ail lots shall hove ~ mlnimum of 60 foot Frontage, with the excep- tion of certaln lots on curved portions of streets(~hose w~dth shall be 60~ at the setback tine) and cul-de-sacs. The motion carried by the following vote, to-w~t: AYES: Members Stewart, dohr~son, St:evenson, Adams ~nd Guyot NOES: Member Smith B,~EN~: Me~ber Vaden LesChatea~x Subdlv)s~on= Tentative Map (Co~t°d,' ~]rect~r Warren submitted a revised tentative map of the mrea containing 66 acres, dlv~ded ~nto 288 ~ots. He stmted that a port]on of the property is not owned by the subdivider, but he ls negotiating For it. ~f the land is not obtained, ~t will be r~ecess~ry for ~ revls[on to be s~bm[tted. He dlscussed the map w~th the Pla~r~ing Cc,ff~iss~©n ,~ st~'eet pattern w~thln the subdivision, the allgnment of Oleander Street ~d Pato,mar !~treet to the north, locotlon of proposed school site and poir~ted out the ~ ~ ~'° re~,~t~o~p of the canyon to be reserved for open space. He stated that . ~ ~he peasant time the only ~ccess to the subdivision is from the south v]a O~eander ;~d :3rs-~e Street~. He discussed recommendations from the planning ~taffo Hember Stewart ~sked ~f there has been mn agreement wlth the Englneer[ng Department as to the improvement of O~eender and Pato~r outside of the subdJviaJon. He stated that if the ~omm[$~on is going to m~ke ~ reco~endat~on to the Counc~]~ they ~ou]d be t~klr~g ~ ~t~d 8rid he would ~[ke the oplnJon of the Director first. Director ~rre~ ~t~te~ thst ~f this ~l[g~ment [~ ~pproved, there ~[]1 be ~ m[s~in~ segment of Ote'~nde. r ~o be constructed. Normal~y subdivlders are not: required to m~ke off=alta ~rnpr'~,¢emerts u'q~,ess determined necessary for access to the deveiopmer~t, ~r,d th~s ~'~!l Ue up to t'he Com~m~ss~orn ~ Council. He stated that he h3d t~lked ~[th the Fk~ r:md they believe ~ccess is adequate for th[s subdivision, but ~hether or not ~ ~,~lt ce for further .~dj~cent develop~nt is another question, an~ ~t: doesn't look very good. ~e s~sated that he has mixed emotions about where 3Jear~der should terminate ~r~ the subdiv~s~on~ ~f i~ ~s the important th~g t:ha~t the street be built by the s~b~i'¢'~der '~t all costs, that the C~ty ~s -;ct w~tl~ng to make a'~y ~,provement, then the or~g~r':! ;~i~gnme~t will De necessary. Somewhere., as development extends to the e~st, the C~ty wil~ h~ve to m~ke improvements on m[sslng segmerts of streets, Ide::~lly, the ,subd~vlder ~[l~ provide i:hem all ~nd where it is possible or necessary for access to n[;s s~bdJv[s[o',;, h,e should do so. Bt is possible to redesign this subdlv[s[o~ so ~k~t Ole~qde' Street will be c~,rr[ed a little further ~nd there will be less for t~ City t:o ~mprove end Ne th~nks t~ subd[v[der will be w[iling to do this. Member L~m~tf -=sked ¢~b~ necessary cut and fill and D~rector W~,rre,r~ described wh~t ~9h~ be (~ece, ss~ry =:~d ,ststed that the bulk of the cranyon v'ould stay ~n ~ts natdra~ ; t~ re. Member Joh¢:on asked Den'n~s Whitman, the subd~v~der~s engineer, ~f the developer be willing ro help sh~re the costs of extending Oleander. Mr. Whitman stated the o~Jy w~y would be with redesign of future unit ¢1, so that the same number of lots ~ouid rem,~in, i-~ doing ~his he thinks they would h~ve no objections ru~n]ng the street o'~ d~¢r; ~f: gr;~d~g w,ark etc., works cdt s~t]sfactor]ly a~d they get the same comnt~nu]ty in design as o-~ th]s map. He discussed cut and fill necessary on the m~p being consiared as compared to whet would be necessary ]f redesigned. Member Stevenson stated th,~t th~s could b6 worked out before submission of f~nal m~p. E~9]neer H~yshm3~ reviewed Er, g~neerin9 Department Mr. Robert 6erger, Attor'~ey for Prl~cess Ma~or, objected to the map on the grod~ds it does not c~ply w~th City ordinances and [s r, ot good pla~n~9 practice. stated that the his(cry of the map is unusu'~l ~ the plant, lng staff apparently felt [~s w:s the proper t~me to try s~eth]~g of th~s concept. Th~s was one of the i¢~rector~s comnents - ]t is an excheroge of reduct~or~ ~n lot sizes for s c~nyon = this ]s b~,,~'9~r~r;g wiLh ord~r~¢nces, ~t is u~fe[r to adjacent property owners. ,=lac r'ev]6~ed his comments made at previous meetings. He requested that 81] records petition protesting the v~r~a~ce, the tentatlve map ~r~d the tape 8~d minutes of this · eet~g arid other meetings re]at[ng to thm]S subdiv~s~on, be preserved and copies of minute? m~de a~.'ra[Jab]e to h~m so that a:~ ~ppe¢~l c~ b~ n~de. Mr. Werrer, commented that these ~tem~ ~'ould be ~vailable from the P16~n[~g off,ce. MSdC (3o~:~:$on ~r~d Adams) That the ter~tati;ve m~p be ~pproved w~th the cond]t[ons outl~rted by the Planning a~d E~g~neer]ng staffs, as below: Before flr~al m~ps of pz'oposed u~its 2, 5 ~d 7 ~re approved, adequate ~ccess to the u~deveioped property to the east shall be provided w~th proper relat~on'- 2h~p ~o ~ schoo~ site, This will require exte~s[on of "K" Street to the e~z;terly bour~de, ry f~stead of "Ln Street~ 2. The memr~"~er ~n which the San D~ego Gas a~d Electric Company high tension lines through the subdiv[s[o~ sh~ll be approved by the Pl8~n[ng and Engineering st~ffs pr]o,-' to submlsslon of ~ f[n~t ~ The e~ethod of grred~r~9 a~d slope planting of those lots ¢dj~ce~t to the c~nyons sh~t1 be ~pproved by the Pl~nr,[ng s~ff prior to submission of ~ f]net m~p. Other' ~ l0 - gradlng and planting in accordance with Resolution of the City Council, paralleling FHA requirements. 4. I~ may be required that some form of ~rrlgatio~ system be required at the rear of those lot~ adjacent to the canyons. 5. A 10" sldew~lk to the school site be provided from M Street, through Lots 231 ~nd 234. 6. 'The subdivider shall acquire and dedicate to the public an easement for sewer purposes along the southerly prolongation of "E" Avenue thwough property by Princess Manor ~nCo as necessary to form an operable sewage system. 7. The subdivider shall acquire and dedicate to the public an easement for sewer purposes for that off-site sewer az shown on the tentative map ganerally, to the north ~nd west of the proposed site. The s~ze and precise allignment of such off-site sewer shall be mbject to approval by the C~ty ~ng~neer. 8. Portiona of the Un~ts No. 3, 4, and 6 are not currently owned by the subdivider. In the event that such lands are not ultlmately acquired by the subdivider, it w~l be necessary to significantly alter the southerly portion of ~e map. A revised tentative map shall be submitted if such ecqu~sltlon has not been com- pleted prior to development of any of the affected un~ts. 9. Easements shown on the typical street section for hydrant and water service shall be designated as genera~ utll~ty easements and shall be increased to 2.5 feet in w~dth upon the final map. in. The subdivider shall provide slope rights upon adjacent properties at the ends of all stub streets. il. The ~ubdivlder shall provide evidence of having obtained slope r~ghts upon adjacent property, where required, for the construction of lot pads. 12. The subdivider sha~ indicate a one-foot lot at the stub end of 0~eander Avenue, "L" Street and "E" Avenue upon the f~nal m~p. The grant deed for sa~d lots shall be prepared in the name of the City, signed and submitted to the C~ty prior to recordation of flnal map. 13. The area designated as "open space" shall be deeded to the City before recorda~ t~on of final map, if required, or mn agreement between the City and the subd~: v~der shall ~e executed which allows dedication ~n phases, but guarantee ult~~ mate dedication of the 10 acres within three years. 14. Spec|f~c methods of handling storm drainage are subject to detailed approva~ by the C~ty Engineer. Designs shall be accomplished on the basis of providing one dry lane ~m e~ch d~rectlon during peak run-off from a storm of lO-year expectancy. 15. The subdivider shall provide the City with drainage easements as determined neces~ sary by the C~ty Engineer. 16. The drainage east of "B" Avenue on "L': Street wlll not be allowed to continue long '~[" Street to the west into the adjacent drainage basin. Th~s flow shall be d~verted to the south onto "B" Avenue. - Il t?. Street grades shown for the northerly portion of Oleander Aver~ue do not appear practical in relationship to adjacent property to the north. Such grades are subject to rev~slon and further approval by the C~ty Engineer. 18, Property l~nes shall be at top of slope in accord wlth Plannlng Comrn~sslon gesolution No, 127. 19. Manhole spacing as shown ~n some cases is in excess of the maximum permitted by ordinance. 20. Units shall be developed in such fashion as to be complete and operable. ]nde- pendent of the development of subsequent units. 21. i'he pract~callty of the sewer system serving Lots 46, 48, 50 and 61-86 is questionable. No approval of such system ~s implied through approval of this map, Weatherstone East Subdivlslon - Tentative Map D~rector Warre~ submltted the map show~ng dlv~slon of the 18og=acre parcel into 77 lots, and reviewed staff recommendations. The Commission discussed with Engineer Harshman, the plan for improvement of East "J'~ Street, and other engineering recommendations. MSUC (Guyer and Adams) That the tentative map of Weatherstone East Subdivision be approved with the conditions outlined by the Plan~ing and Engineering staffs, as below; 1. A letter from the County Surveyor-Road Commissioner, stating that the fill which extends into the unincorporated area adjacent to subdivision is in con= form~ce with the County Grading Ordlna~ce, shall be submitted to the Plan- ning Department prior to approva~ of the f~n~l map. 2. Prior to approval of the f~na] map, it shall be demonstrated by submission of plot plams that lots 50, 51 and 52 ca~3 properly accommodate houses. 3. Slope planting shall be accomplished, generally in accordance with FHA require= ments, but the actual types of planting shall be approved by the planning staff, 4. The f~nal map shall show rear lot llne utility easements or provide suitable letters of release from utility companies. 5. The typical section of East "J'~ Street easterly of the westerly line of Lot 33 shall be revised as follows: a. The thickness of the pavement shall be ~ncreased to 3" a.c. b. The monolithic curb and s~dewalk shall be 5.5 feet total width instead of 5.O feet as shown. c. The tree planting and maintenance easement shall be increased to 7.5 feet. 6o In accord with the standard practice to require only the instal~atlon of the ecfuiYe"ent oF r= 40=foot street by the subdivider, it is; recor,q~,erded th.~ the C;~¥ ~e~r ~:he expe~:se of the ~wo center ~,~nes o~ th~s p~rt~,~n ~f n? Street (ernst of we.;t ~r;e of Lot 33). ',f possible, th~s work should be dore cuTre:~ w~ t:h the subd~v~s~o~ ~mprove~r~ts. Est~¢~ted cost: Yr:e typ~:;~ ~6ctU~'~ of Ea2t '~ Street ~e~teriy of the wes~ ;~:e of Lot 33 r~. Th=, t:b~ckness of the p~veF~nt shall be ~cre,zsed to 3" ~.c. b. The fsce of c~rb on the ~orth side of the street sh:¢lt be p~aced 32 feet fr0,m centert c. ~'he monolithic cdrb ~d $~de~%]k sha~ be 5.5 feet instead of 5.0 d. ¢, 7.5 fo~,t tree p~%t~9 ~',d m~]nte~ce e~ement ¢h¢~ be provided b~zcK of property l~e o~ the north side of t~ street. 8. Regdrd r~g the portion of East "J*" Street wes~ of the we%t ]~e of Lot 33, should be coted that the subdivider would ~orm,z:¢]y be required only [o sidewalk ~rd dr~vewe, y f~pro~s [n order to complete the surface ]mprove~nts. Future w~den~g wou~d ~ such cdse require the removd] of :¢:ch Therefore, ~t is recommended th,~t t~ (;]ty pdrt~c~p~te dur~r~g of t~ subd~v~[o~ ~mproveme~ts a~d b_,,=rm~ ~he . cooc of ~w curb .snd w~de'-~ed ~L~ve~r~t 4~on9 the north s~de of th~s port,on of East ~:Z'~ $;~ree~. Est,: ms,ed cost: curb - $900~ p~v~g ,= 2,400~ tot~ - $3,300. ~0. ~eg;~d~'9 i*:'te ~ sh~:~ upo~ the msp, ~uch note sha'~t be ~ppl~csb~e only to Lot ]. FL'ribes, ~y dev[dt]o~ from the requirements of 6om~',~s~oq No. ~27 sh~ be submitted for review ~d ,spprova~ of the C~ty E~g[~eer. A~prow~ of b~ev,~t~o~,t,~ ~ F~oor P~{~ns = Thom,~:s Day,es = 385 F~'rst 8~rector W~rren submitted ~ plot p~ ~f the property, ~t~t~g that ~,¢~ the Corn= m~ss~o~ h~d ¢,pproved development of the proper~y f~to three ~dd~t~o~;s~ building they h~d ~eques~ed the detailed development p~n:~ to be ~ bm~tted for ~pprov~l be= foFe o~;nSt~uct)o~. ~e ~t~ed that e~ch of the 4 resu)t)ng lots ¢~re more thsn 7ooo sqa.~re feet req:.~;'ed )n the R-) zoK, e~ b)rector Wsrr6~, reviewed ~t~'ff )r;d~c.~::~n9 that the proposed ~:~e))~ngs wou~d be comp~,t~b~6 w~th those ~ the crew. MSUC (~uyer and Ad~ms) 7h~t the p'~s for deveiop~nt of the property 8t 385 F~rst Avenue wi~h 8 hot~l of 4 )ot~,be approved subject to the fol~owlng cond)tions: ). The %ubm)¢sioq of ~ plJot p)sn show)~g ~l~ four (4) parce)s ~mnc)uding the 25 foot esseL~'tt. Pier sh~)~ )nd)cste that the so~th 20 feet of ¢~id easement sh~)i be p~ve~ per th~ v~r)ance requ~re~n~¢, ~¢d the north 5 feet w)~il be The type of: ;~dsc~p)rg to be used a~d ~ny existing p~an~ ~ter~8iJ sh~)) be 2. A permit shs~'¢ be tskeK out for a 6 foot fence or ws~ ~t the ssm~ t~ - 13 - are issued for the houses (fence subject to staff approval). 3. A copy of the landscaping maintenance requirements shall be filed w~th the P~annJng Department and copies forwarded to each property owner. Deta[~ed Ptan, s for St. Mark's Lutheran Church - 580 Hilltop Dr~ve D~rector Warre~ reviewed conditions of a conditional use permit approving addition to the St. Mark's Lutheran Church. He submitted final plot plan and made addi- tional recommendations w~th regard to the parking and landscaping. Mr. S~gurdson, architect, d~$cussed the requirement for a fence that had been stipulated when the permit was granted. He stated that on the west property llne there ~ a f~ve foot difference in elevation which, with planting atop, would have same effect as a wall; that on the north property lJne, adjacent property owners had already constructed fences and that t~ church ~s attempting to get signatures from those property owners that they would not object to elimination of the requJrement~ for a fence, The Commission discussed the landscaping and ground cover for the slope~ and agreed th~s could be left up to approvaJ by the staff, They discussed waiving the merits for fences along the west property l~ne and the north property ~ne and agreed that if adjacent property owners on the north agreed, the fence would be wa~ved and that one would not be needed a]ong west property ]Jne Jn view of difference in elevatJOno MSUC (~dams and Guyer) That the f~nal plans be approved as submitted, subject to the followlng: !. That the requirement for a wall along the west property llne be waived [n v~ew of the five foot d]fference Jn 2.That the wall along the ~orth property line be waived ~f s~gned agreement w~th adjoining property owner's can be obtained. 3.That the developer work with the Planning Director regarding f~nel parking ~ayout and landscaping° Amendment to Garage Requirement ]n R-~ Zone Director Warren reviewed the proposed change [n the ordinance and the reasons behind the proposal. The Commission had, at e prevhous workshop session, revJewed the pro~ posed new ordinance and heard comments from the C~ty Attorney why the existing ordinance i~ not completely ju~t~fJableo Member dohnson stated he is not in favor of this ordinance as written; that the expected requests for variances to convert garages into living quarters had not materialized, and that when they are submitted, they can be considered individual~yo Member Stewart stated that there had been some 200 violations and this amendmen~ help a~1eviate the problem] however, th[s ]s not the only reason for the change. The Commission, for a long time, has been searching for the proper control. MSC (Stewart ~nd Adams) That the amendment be set for public hearing et the June J6th meet[ngo Member Johnson voted ~no"o Amen~m~t to 'l'~ Zone ~rect~r Warren e×pl~ned the need for the proposed amendment to the T~delar~ Zone. T~s ~m~dm~t wi~ eli,~i~te the p~bllc h~aring requirement before ~pprov~ng u~$e~o M.,~u (Ad~m~ ~nd Guyer~ T~.~t ~e amendment be set for public hearing at the June 16th meet ~ng. PR~POSE~ MEETING W~TH SWEETW~TER C~VIC ASSOCiATiON Oirector War~ exp~m~ned that there has been c~ns~derable ~ntroversy over the p~st ye;~rs over the type of development allowed ~n Sweetwater Valley. The C~ty Council had ~ked that ~ meeting be he~d w~th the ~rembers of the Associatlon to discuss annexation and deve~opment end ask what these people would ]~ke. '?he Association meet:~ next we~k mhd they have asked ~f they should pu: th[~ on their agendz. Nie exple[r~ed that he fee~s it ~hould be a Chu]a Vista meeting end wondered whether or ~ot ~t should be lust the ~s~oc~et[on or for anyome who ~[~hes to come. Every re~[dent of ~he ve[]ey is not e member of the A~$oc]ation. Member Stewart stated :t should be a~ the people interested, not just the Member Adam~ st~ed ne fee~s it ~hou~d be ]u~t w~th representatives of the t]on. The Commission d~cu~ed ~ho should be e~ked to attend amd whether t~ meeting ~o]ve any proble~ - t~t ~le Jt might be des:r~bJe to have anyocoe [~tere~ted, often agreement c~r~ot be m~de w~th a l~rge group and we ~ould h~ve the ~ oJd re~ 5~rec~o~ W~r~n stated that he would attempt to get some en~wer~ for th~ next r~t~ng to the ~mber~h~p of the Association end a f~rm out~ne of what wo~d b~ ~.]?,J~NME~T MSUC Fh~t the ~t~ng ~djourn (9:55 P.M.) to June ~6th, 1966, at 7:00 Respectfully submitted, Acting Secretary