Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1967/05/15 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA May 15, 1967 The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California, was held on the above date with the following mem- bers present: Stewart, York, Gregson, Hyde, Rice, and Guyer. Absent: (with previous notification) Member Adams. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, Junior Planner Masciarelli, City Attorney Lindberg and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. STATEMENT The Secretary of the Commission hereby states that she did post within 24 hours of adjournment as required by law, the order for the adjourned meeting of May 1, 1967~ APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC CGregson-York) Approval of the minutes of May 1, 1967, as mailed. Director of Planning Warren stated that a request was made to consider item #5 first on the agenda. Request for Approval of Building Plans - Park Hill Methodist Church - 545 East Naples Street Director of Planning Warren stated that a request was made by letter ask- · ng for approval of plans for a building to be moved into the City - the Commission will take two actions: (1) approving specific plans for the development under the conditional use permit, and [2) take action on architectural compatibility of a move-in for the first time. In June 1962, the Commission gave approval for a conditional use permit for church purposes on this s~te - this site is across the street from the Greg Rogers School. One of the conditions was that plans for the de- velopment were to be submitted to the Commission for approval. Mr. Warren then submitted detailed plans showing the total site, and also pictures of the proposed building to be moved in. He declared that this would be the iirst element of a major development. This "A" frame building will have a seating capacity of 150 persons and 30 off-street parking spaces will be provided, as required by ordinance. The property has a required 25' front setback for parking, w~th the building setback proposed at 130' from Naples Street. The staff recommends approval subject to certain conditions. Director Warren suggested the appli- cants concern themselves with a site plan for the total area even though this particular development might not have any effect on it; they should lay out their master plan. The Commission discussed the right~of-way and Improvements and con- curred that the setback would not be affected by the improvements. James Brabant, Minister of the Church and the applicant, 354 Roman Way, stated he agrees with all the conditions as recommended by the Director of Plannlng~ and those of the Building Inspector~ He added that they will be coming up with a master plan for their entire development, and in the near future, they will be submitting an application to move in a trailer to be used temporarily for class~ooms~ MSUC (Guyer-Rlce~ Approval of the move-in of an "A" frame building as submitted by plans presented at the meeting, subject to the following conditions: 1. A minimum of three street trees (15 gal. min.) shall be planted in the area between the sidewalk and the parking area. Note: Church shall grant the City a 10' wide easement for tree plant- ing and maintenance adjacent to the front property line. 2. A landscaping and sprInkler plan shall be submitted, approved and completed prior to occupancy of said structure. 3. Paving of all dr~ves and parking areas shall be accomplished with 2" of asphaltic concrete over 4" of decomposed granite or less if approved by the City Engineer. 4. The 15' parkway area between the sidewalk and curb shall be included in the landscaping plan~ 5. All future expansion of facilities on this site will require approval by the Planning Commission. Note: Consideration of further landscaping to the east will be studied at that time. 6. Any proposed sign structures shall be submitted to the Planning staff for approval~ PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - Rob~nhood Homes, Inc. - South Side of Telegraph Canyon Road between L Street and Melrose Avenue - Request to Provide Portion of Required Parking on Frontage Road The application was read in which a request was made for permlsslon to provide, on a segment of Telegraph Canyon Road designed as a frontage road serving the property, a portion of the required park- ing spaces for an apartment complex. The proposed development to be constructed on property fronting on the south s~de of Telegraph Canyon Road between L Street and Melrose Avenue. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan, noting the loca- tion and ad3acent land use~ He explained that the area e~compasses 113,000 square feet of R-3 zoned land~ The applicant is proposing 100 units - 76 one-bedroom and 24 two-bedroom to be constructed in slx buildings with on-s~te parking ~or 132 cars. They are request- lng permission to provide 28 parking spaces on the south side of the access road adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road. By ordinance, they are required to provide 150 spaces - by this variance, they will be able to provide 160 spaces~ S~nce traffic is now directed on L Street, th~s frontage road will be used solely for the apartments. -2- D~rector Warren then explained the alignment of Telegraph Canyon Road, and the fact that now L Street is designed to handle the major flow of traffic; therefore, the 100' right-of-way existing on the remaining portion of Telegraph is in excess of the pro- ~ected traffic needs. He added that the street was designed in such a manner to provide for a 20' wide access road with a 4' wide concrete ~sland adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road which will pro- vide an additional 48' wide travel-way~ If the variance is ap- proved, a 12' one-2ay travel lane would remain. Mr. Warren added that the staff attempted to determine a reasonable ratio of off- street parking spaces being used and found that 1¼ spaces were being used by the tenants and & spaces by the guests; this is what the applicants are proposing to do. Mr. Warren then reviewed the con- dltlons recommended by the staff for approval~ This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened Mr. Stanley Merrett, representing Robinhood Homes, spoke of the construction plans- He explained that the two story building will have apartments on the second floor and a recreational area on the first floor housing a sauna bath, laundry room, etc. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Guyer felt this proposed development was a good solution to this piece of property. Chairman Stewart questioned whether the access road would be re- stricted to one-way traffic. Mr. Warren stated it would be. Mr. Clarence Suller, 443 Del Mar Court, asked what the traffic would be like an this area and what the speed limit would be. Chairman Stewart explained that this traffic pattern will be well supervised by the Engineering Division and well-marked. MSUC (Rice-Gregson) Variance be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The area between the sidewalk and curb shall be filled with concrete (this is necessary ~f parking is approved at the curb~. 2~ The applicant shall provide a total of 1½ parking spaces per unit subject to a plan acceptable to the Planning and Engineer- ing staffs, with a minimum of 1¼ spaces per unit provided on site, and the remaining spaces on the adjoining access road. A landscaping plan shall be submitted to the staff for approval prior to building permits being issued~ Note: Such plan shall include planting for the south slope and City right-of- way on Melrose. 4. The applicant shall grant the City a 10' easement on Telegraph Canyon Road and for tree planting and maintenance. -3- An enclosed trash area or areas shall be provided on the final plans subject to staff approval. 6. All overhead ut±lities shall be placed in the south 6' ease- ment for services to the units or placed underground, if feasible. 7. The access road used for parking shall be limited to one-way traffic heading east. Findings be as follows: a. That the strict application of the zoning regulations or re- quirements would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the regulations. The property fronts on an access street which was designed to alleviate vehicular conflict with the anticipated traffic load on Telegraph Canyon Road. This traffic has been re- assigned to L Street. The property now has two curbs on the streets which can be used for parking in the future. b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions appli- cable to the property involved or to the intended use or develop- ment of the property that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone o~ neighborhood. The requested area for additional parking will be used ex- clusively by the applicant and therefore, can logically be included as a usable area for required parking without disrupting any flow of traffic~ c. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detri- mental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improve- ments in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located. This property is reasonably separated by physical grades from adjoining property, and by streets and curbs. The use of the access road for parking will have no effect on the surrounding residential developments. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. This proposal has no effect on the General Plan. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Glenn H. Dedmon - 296 H Street Request for Medical Office in R-3 Zone The application was read in which a request was made for permission to convert an existing house into a medical office. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the loca- tion, adjacen~ zoning and land use. He explained the dwelling in question contains 900 square feet and the lot measures 40' x 145'. -4- The applicant plans to retain the existing house on the southerly part of the lot; this would leave an area 42' x 40' for parking pur- poses in back of the converted house. This would provide parking for 3 cars - sixspaces are required, five for the office and one for the house~ The applicant has a letter from the church across the street authorizing him to use the area east of the church on the north side of H Street for parking. In this respect, the ordinance does allow for parking to be within 300' of any proposed business. Directo~ Warren then noted the distance from the dwelling to the parking lot would be within 300; but that it is actually 570' in walklng distance from the site using the cross-walks. Mr. Warren discussed the ultimate improvement for H Street and delineated the reasons the staff recommends denial. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Thomas Hamilton~ owner of the pharmacy next door, and speaking for the applicant, stated he is buying the property in question. One of the reasons for ~equesting the conditional use permit was be- cause of the widening plans for H Street. The doctor and the nurses will use the parking area next to the church for their cars, leaving the area in back of the house for patient parking. Mr. Hamilton added that this proposed request fits in well with the General Plan. Chairman Stewart questioned Mr~ Hamilton as to whether he proposes to open up access from his pharmacy to this area. Mr. Hamilton stated he was not, at the present time, but eventually will take down the retaining wall - perhaps at the time H Street will be widened. He added that at this time, the cars coming into the area would not have much room for maneuverability~ Chairman Stewart asked whether the sidewalks were presently in their permanent position. Mr Warren indicated they were, and would not have to be moved by the w~dening of H Street. The Commission discussed the plan to leave the existing house at the rear of the property. Mr. Hamilton maintained that the lessee of the house works during the daytime hours which would not con- flict in any way with the proposed parking for the medical office. The Commission dlscussed the time element for the proposed use. Mr. Hamilton asked for two years minimum. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member York commented that he could go along with this if it tied into the commercial area on Third Avenue that it was inconceiv- able that anyone would use the parking area in the back of the dwelling. In all probability, they would use the street for park- ing, and H Street ~s already congested~ H Street is also expected to be widened th~s ~ear. Member Guyer remarked ~hat anytime one has to depend on parking across the street, it was a poor plan~ -5- Member Gregson declared that people would jaywalk across H Street to the medical office ra~her than use the crosswalk. Chairman Stewart felt that the applicant Ks trying to get more out of the property than he should - medical offlce and retaining the rental in the rear; it is less than a desirable set-up. MSUC (Hyde-Guyer) Den~al of conditional use permit due to the fol- lowing facts: The parking proposed on site is served by a 9' wide driveway to be used by customers which Ks inadequate for commercial use~ The parking area itsel£ is poorly conceived. 2. The proposed offsite parking area, although technically within 300' of the s~te, is actually 570' from the site in walking distance, using the marked crosswalks~ This proposal represents at best an interim mixed use of an awkward piece of property~ The City would suffer more by perpetuating this type of development than leaving the prop- er~y as is until redevelopment is financially feasibles 4. The proposed use would encourage office or commercial use further east on H Street, since the property does not front on Third Avenue as does the pharmacy and doctor's office to the west~ 5. The proposed use would present a traffic problem - both in respect to people jay-walking instead of using the crosswalk, and to the already congested traffic problem existing on H Street. The appilcant was informed of has right to appeal° PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Santa Maria International Academy - 430 Second Avenue - Request for Private School in R-1 Zone The application was read in which a request was made for permission to operate a secondary day school in the facilities of the First Christian Church located at 430 Second Avenue and zoned R-1. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the loca- tion, adjacent land use and zoning. He explained the use was for a three-year period after which the construction of their new facil- ity would be completed~ Sixty students would be enrolled during the first year and this number would lncrease du~ing the second and third years. The staff recommends approval of the request since the building proposed to be used is qu~te a distance from the sur- rounding neighborhood d~ to topographical features, and it would be on a temporary basis~ This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened~ -6- The Reverend Lawrence H, Waddy, speaking for the applicant, dis- cussed the enrollm£nt~ noting that they will have 60 students to start with and by the third year, they will have 100. The church facilities can acccmmodate 60 students very nicely; it will be "strained" to accommodate 100~ however, they will manage. Mr~ T. J~ Tornesella~ 443 Del Mar Court, declared the facilities were adjacent to bis property and questioned the age group of the children that would attend this school. Reverend Waddy stated the ages would be 12 to 14 years and the grades would be 7, 8 and 9~ In the second year, they will add the 10th grade. He added that he has permission to use the Chula Vista park facilities to which the students will go every day after lunch~ There being no further co~ment~ either ~or or against, the hearing was declared closed~ MSUC (Gregson-Rlce~ Approval of the conditional use permit for a three year period of time, sub3ect to the condition that the en- rollment will not exceed 100 students~ F~ndlngs be as ~ollows: a. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general wel~-be£ng of the neighborhood or the community, There is no ~acllity similar to that proposed ~n the South Bay area and such ~acility would be an asset to the City~ b. That such use wlll not, under the circumstances of the particu- lar case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or in3urious to property or ~mprovements ~n the vicinity, The subject property, a church with proper facilities for the proposed use, Is well-insulated from the surrounding area due to topographical differences between the subject property and its ne~ghbors~ The building to be used is a considerable distance from all property lines. c, Tha5 the proposed use will comply with the regulations and con- d~tions specliled in the Code for such use. The plans as submitted and the conditions imposed would re- sult ~n the compliance of all applicable Code regulations. d. That the granting of this conditional use will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of CHula Vista or the adopted plan o~ any governmental agency, The proposed use would not affect the General Plan~ -7- PUBLIC HEARING - Proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance - Use of Front Yard Setback in Residential Zones for Parkinq Director of Planning Warren stated that this amendment was initiated by the Commission at the request of the staff. On reviewing some plans for proposed development, the staff found the wording of the present ordlnance vague and that it does not do the 3ob. It refers to not utilizing the front yard setback for the required parking "spaces", and lnterpretlng this, one developer of apartments is conforming to the setback requirements but depending upon the re- mmalnder of the setback area for access to the parking. The total area between the sidewalk and building will be paved. This is what initiated this action~ Mr. Warren then read the text of the proposed amendment~ He explained that it would not prohibit parking in front of the building, depending on how the building was designed; i~ does effectively reserve a front yard setback for landscaping. The question to be resolved is whether such setbacks as they do ex~st are equitable in all cases. If this is the case, and more land is needed for off-street parking facilities, it should be on the basis of reconsideration of the required setback, and that we have some other provision that would prohibit the paving of the total front of the building for this use. City Attorney Lindberg stated he discussed this with Mr. Lee, the Assistant Planner, as to what the Department and Commission would feel should be the type of parking allowed in the front area of apartment units. The essential problem is the one of trying to eliminate the use of the front setback area as an area used for parking or in conjunction with the maneuvering area necessary for the parking; at the same time, permitting the front yard to be used as an access road to the rear or front entrance of the build- lng, as long as it would not serve as any portion of the parking. Member Rice asked if ~t was permissible to park the cars in this area, even though it would not be the required parking. City Attorney Llndberg affirmed thls. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Prank Ferreira, 3715 Putter Drivet Bonita, stated he had not had a chance to see this proposed amendment, but was under the im- pression that this ordinance had already been enacted. He had a project that was pretty much underway, but abandoned it about two weeks ago as a result of being under the impression that this was enacted. He discussed a street in the City having an 80 foot right- of-way which sometime in the past, the staff bad recommended be reduced. Although a study was done on it, no action was taken~ It was being processed along with many other streets in town that had excessive r~ght-of-way. Both the Planning and Engineering staff feel this r~ght-of-way is excessive, but the question comes up, if a portion of this right-of-way is vacated at th~s time, what happens to the existing sidewalks and trees in this right-of-way. The street he is referring to is one C~ty block long from the center l~ne of the stree5 to the building setback is 53 feet. This is -8- where he feels it taes anto the proposed change. Mr. Ferreira de- clared that he has no oppositaon to the amendment except in those cases where unnecessarily wide rights-of-way leave a permanent wade parkway. Director of Planning Warren explaaned that this perhaps is directed to those older parts of the Caty where unusually wide rights-of-way have been requared - improvements are an, and the likelihood of widening is remote; thereby leaving a great deal of space between the curb and the residence~ Mr. Ferreira stated that the subject property which he is discussing has 33 feet from the curb to the front of the building; it is R-3, and normally £n an R-3 area, the distance from the curb to the front of the building line is 15 feet. He added that for a situation such as this one, they should be allowed to park in the front setback, since they will still en]oy as much green area as other areas in town with normal right-of-way and setback. Director Warren explaaned that the street Mr. Ferreira is talking about is Brlghtwood. He also cautioned the Commission about confus- ing this publac h~i'~ with this problem. The improvements on this street are 40 feet wide, and the setback is 20 feet; therefore, it would be 40 feet from the curb to the setback line. The likeli- hood of the improvements being widened is remote. The proposal by the sta£f is part of research study; this report has not been printed or dlstr~buted~ If this right-of-way is to remain, the curb would be permanent, which gives you a lot of space which serves no purpose. The questaon is: ~o we vacate part of the right-of-way? ~o we change the setback? One of the considerations is the location of existing improvements. I~ the street were vacated, then the setbacks would have to be changed. The existing buildings on the street would have to be taken anto consideration - the single family may or may not be replaced wath multiple fam±ly~ What Mr. Ferreira · s sayang, then, ~s that with this proposal, unless he is granted relief ~n situations where an unusually wide permanent space could result, it would be unj~st~ City Attorney Lindberg asked how this setback line was established. D~rector Warren stated it was done by map. Mr. Ferrelra declared that a proposed change in the ordinance would be invalid in some cases, and he reiterated that he does have a proposed pro3ect on which he stopped the plans two weeks ago because of this very problem - they dad not want the parking in front of has building e~ther, but where there will be 40 feet of green area, some relief should be granted. Cl~y Attorney Lindberg felt an adjustment should be sought for this type o~ situation - the problem is the excessive setback. Mr. Ferreira stated that he has applied to the Engineering Department for a vacation of a portion of this right-of-way. They made a study and said they could not sanction the same because of the location of the trees in connection with the proposed location of the new side- walk. Everyone agrees the street should be vacated; however, there are some factors involved which make thas infeasible. --9-- D~recto~ Warren commented, that although Mr, Ferrelra's remarks may be pertlnen%, he did not want to confuse vacating the street with this public hearing. An application can be f±led to request vaca- tion of the street and this can be investigated - it is not a pro- posal of the staff, at this time, that the street be vacated. It probably ougb~ to be a 3olnt venture of all of the property owners on the str~es~ Mr. Fer~eira stated that he has volunteered to pay for the amount of existing sidewalk, but this is not the problem~ The problem is the utilities, locating the new sidewalk in re~ tion to the trees that are there, etc. Member York suggested a postponement of this hearing to give them time to study the ramifications of this ordinance~ Without a study, there appears to be two possible solutions in the absence of a var- iance request: (ii to add into the ordinance a provision whereby the requirement would be waived if there were a 15 or 20 foot permanent green area between the property and curb line; {2) or reducing the setback to a zero setback or whatever would be required to maintain this 15 or 20 fee~ of required green area and still accomplish the same thing so far as the purpose of the ordinance ~s concerned. Th~s would eliminate having to grant variances in unusual situations. D~rector Warren felt this might be a valid matter for staff study, and added that they d~d not wish to push through an ordinance that is not a good one~ The matter is one of some urgency so that the staff can prevent th~s same thing from happening too often~ MSUC {York-Hyde) Postpone action on th~s matter to the meeting of June 5, 1967~ Clty Attorney Llndberg stated he wished to emphasize the point that under the ex~sting ord~nance, Mr~ Ferre~ra does not have any relief from the problem outlined here because no parking is allowed in the setback. This particular ordinance only tightens it up a very small amount by eliminating the situation which they are confronted with - the maneuvering areas~ Chairman Stewart commented that he felt a situation as described by Mr~ Ferre~ra would be a valid one on which to file a variance. Director Warren declared he would get some more of th~s ~nformation to the Comm~ssion~ -10- PUBLIC HEARING Proposed Prezoning to R-1 - Valle Lindo School Annexation Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of this school site~ The parcel is 9°97 acres and is located east of Oleander Avenue and south of Orange Avenue° Mr. Warren stated that, typically, such school sites have been zoned the same as the residen- tial area to which they are adjacent~ The setback on Oleander is 15 feet; a portion of Senna Way has been vacated which gives the school access through these lots. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened~ There being no comment, either for or against, the hearing was de- clared closedl The Commission discussed the prezon~ng and the location and concurred that the request was in order~ RESOLUTION NO. 468 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recom- MSUC (Rice-Gregson/ mending to the City Council the Prezoning to R-1 of the Valle Lindo School Annexation Findings be as follows: a. It is good zoning practice to place school sites in the same zone as that property which surrounds it~ b, Schools are a permitted use in the R-1 zone. c. The General Plan designates th~s area as medium density residential. Approval - Valle Lindo School Annexation Director of Planning Warren stated thls is the same annexation as that just discussed for prezoning. This 9.97 acres of land which will house an elementary school has been approved by the Local Agency For- matron Commisslon, and the staff recommends approval~ MSUC (Rice-G~egson) Approval of Valle Lindo School Annexation. Recommendation - Proposed Acqulsltion of Property at 205 Landis Avenu~ for Public Parking Lot Director of Planning Warren explained this is a parcel of land situated on the east side of Landis Avenue extending through to the alley for a depth of 125 feet and having 50 feet of frontage; it is 40 feet south of E Street~, The government code requires a proposal by the City to acquire such land to be referred to the Planning Coramlssion for a re- port as to whether it conforms to the General Plan. In the Sketch Plan of the Third Avenue-C~vic Center Area, this parcel is delineated as part of future parking area and expanding the Civic Center-Downtown area~ -11- Although the Sketch Plan has not been adopted, reference is made to it in the General Plan. The staff finds this request in conformance with the Plan and will assist the Parking Place Commission in achie- ving their goal and would recommend that the Commission forward this finding to the Council. Director Warren asked that the City Attorney g~ve an explanation of the operation of the Parking District. City Attorney Lindberg then discussed the structure and purpose of the Parking District program and related other pertinent facts. Member Gregson asked how many parking spaces they could get from this lot. Director Warren noted the lot itself was 50 feet wide and used by itself would require angle parking, with traffic going one way. The development of the lot, however, would be turned over to the Engi- neering Division and the specific number of spaces is not known. Member York felt the intent would be to hold it for future development in conjunction with acquiring adjacent property. Director Warren noted that the recommendation of the staff would be to acquire adjoining property. It would, however, be a decision of the Parking Place Commission whether to use this singly or walt until adjoining property is acquired~ The Commission discussed the price - $13,000 and concurred it was wise to buy the property now at this price and hold it for future development. Chairman Stewart declared he was highly in favor of acquiring this parcel for parking purposes. He discussed the parking situation at the time Burnett Furniture came in some time ago and asked to use their parking area in the back for development of their store; that there was a definite need for these parking areas. Member Guyer commented that it was all part of the parking district and will eventually all become it someday. MSUC (Hyde-Guyer) Acquisition of subject parcel for parking purposes is in conformance with the General Plan, and therefore, the Commis- sion recommends approval. Discussion - Development of Major Street Frontage in R-1 Zones Director of Planning Warren stated that last week, the developers of the Southwestern College Estates were in and discussed their plans for Units 3 and 4 with both the Planning and Engineering staffs. Primarily, they are concerned with the treatment of the lots adjacent to H Street, once this street is extended. In the future, H Street would be a major street comparable to Orange Avenue. Discussion was held on the pros and cons of double frontage lots for single-family lots; we pointed out to the subdividers that the generally accepted policy of the City for new subdivisions is that we require double -12- frontage situations or a lot siding on these ma]or streets to keep the individual driveways from having access. It is not a written policy, but one to which the City adhered in the last two situations involved - down on Orange Street. Cost of improving the ma~or street when access is den~ed was also discussed at this meeting; in those cases ad3acent to Orange Avenue, the subdividers dedicated right-of- way, put in paving and gutter and sidewalk where it was required and a certain amount of shoulder paving There has been some question as to the justification of this on the part of the subdivider when access is denied. The other problem is the type of fence or walls that should be put up at the rear of the properties. In the subdi- visions on Orange Avenuet the original recommendation by the staff was for a masonry wall since it is permanent and less likely to be changed by any of the residents; however, a grape stake fence with masonry pallars was approved. If property installed, it can be a permanent fence, but in some cases in the Princess Manor Subdivasion, some of the stakes have been removed or fallen off, and in the Holiday Estates, some of the residents have painted their fences~ Another problem is the area between the fences and the sadewalk - how should this be treated? The subdivider pointed out that in many cities where double frontage lots were developed, a tunnel-effect was created~ Rather than try to perpetuate these problems that have come up, we should try to find a solution to them. Mr. Warren indi- cated that the Commission may have some ideas which could be incor- porated into a policy which could be recommended for adoptlon~ He added that ~n discussing the double-frontage lots, it has always been the indicataon of the staff that the more desirable lots are those facing on local resadentaal streets~ However, these subdividers de- clared that at seems to have little effect on the sale of the lots - particularly in those areas where they are establashing the first sections of the street where the traffic is not yet established~ Member York felt they made a mistake on Orange Avenue~ The homes on L and E Street, both ma3or streets, have not deteriorated because they are on a ma~or street. Assuming that there is no real objection to having access off the major street and having lots fronting on the major street, the subdivider has three alternatives as to how he lays out his subdivision: (1) facing the lots on a ma~or street; (2) facing the lots on a street that runs at right angles to a ma]or street; ~3) to have double frontage lots with the houses facing out onto a street that runs parallel to and a lot depth away from a major street - the back yard facing out onto the major street. In this first case, there as nothing required of the subdivider which would not normally be required. In the second situation, there is nothang that should be required of the subdivider in addition to the normal subdivision requirements insofar as Planning is concerned~ In the thard alternative, the subdivider should be required to fence it, and thas should be a permanent type of fencang that does not re- quire any upkeep or subject to being painted 16 dafferent colors by 16 different homeowners He should also be required to landscape, with some type of ground cover, between the fence and sidewalk - something other than ice plant- Also he should be required to put an a separate sprinkler control for each residence, in order to encourage these property owners to maintain this ground cover. The choice of these alternatives becomes the subdividers. -13- Director Warren declared that a major street is so designed to carry traffic, to connect collectors, etc~; they want to minimize this con- fl~ct of traffic flow as much as possible, and thus, one of the fac- tots leading to the double frontage lots. Member R~ce felt that a sprinkler system outside the fence area would be a little ~mpract~cal if there is a solid masonry fence - there will not be adequate access to the back area; therefore, no maintanance of the area. Mr. Rice suggested this area might be paved~ Generally, people do not care what happens to the outside area back of their fence, unless ~t is made an integral part of their property. Director Warren illustrated a point whereby there would be a slope at the rear of these lots and the question would be where to put the fence and what to do wlth the remaining outside area~ Member Hyde d~scussed a comparable situation in the Long Beach area. Chairman Stewart discussed the double frontage lots along the Santa Ana freeway where masonry walls are used: He also spoke of driving through the better residential areas in San Francisco recently where homes front on major streets~ He felt this heavy traffic did not de- tract from the area~ Mr~ Stewart ~ndicated that he personally feels the double-frontage lots may not be a good idea - that there is too much area with paving on it, a waste of land. No one takes care of the area between his property line and the paving. Chairman Stewart added that he would rather see the right angle streets radiating from the principal traffic arterial, or else have them face on the arterial. Member York commented on a possible requirement that driveways be designed to eliminate the need to back out. This is not an uncommon requirement in subdivisions on major streets~ Member Rice suggested a wider parking lane be provided whlch would keep the ma~n stream of traffic out further from the curb and allow the people more space to back out of their property and to feed into the line o~ trafflc. Director Warren noted that this was being done in some cases - they are actually adding a lane of paving to allow people to get into the traffic flow, He added that the Commission should try to prepare a few alternatives which can be adopted, in order to give the developers a criteria for development~ Member York agreed and suggested leaving it up to the developer to choose which one of these alternatlves he would like to follow in h~s development~ Cha~rman Stewart declared that if these are arranged according to priority, to make the double frontage lots number three the last one. Member York felt the requirement of masonry wall would dis- courage this type of development~ because of the cost involved. Mr Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, suggested two alterna- %lyes: (11 a service road, and ~2) an alley. Chairman Stewart com- mented that Po~ce dislike alleys, and He would prefer the se£vice roads Director Warren suggested the s%aff take these alternatives and make a report listing the pros and cons Chairman Stewart suggested a telephone sur~ey be made to other cities~ possibly even Fremont. Mem- ber Hyde suggested the staff get some slides and pictures of these developments~ Chairman Stewar~ declared th~s will be brought back to the Commission after the repo£t is submitted. Discussion - Need for Zoning o~ Property Prontlng on Telegraph Canyon Road in Unincorporated Area Director of Planning Warren ~nd~cated that the City must be careful not to recommend to the County something that may set up a problem for the large agricultural users -- the problem doesn't lie with that vast property owned by ~he Otay Ranch; instead, with the small prop- erty owners along Telegraph Canyon Road~ As the traffic increases, and you get two points that are being connected, with people going back and forth, someone ~s going to try to stop them~ The latest venture that concerns the City ~s the establishment of a beer bar on the north s~de o~ Telegraph Canyon Road in unzoned territory, east o~ the Halecrest development A model home structure used by a large subdivision has been moved onto th~s site and will be used for this beer bar. Mr Warren declared that the concern here ~s what may hap- pen along th~s road -- what usually typically happens along County roads adjacent to urban development~ He feels the County should try to ~mplemen~ some k~nd o~ zoning that would still perpetuate the agricultural use. Chairman Stewart asked if ~hey could be discriminating enough to ask the County to apply th~s to these small plots rather than one terri- tory. Director Warren stated he didn't know, but felt the Councy should estlabish consistent zoning for that stretch of the road~ Even though ~t is doubtful that the Ranch will sell off pieces of their property, there is no guarantee of th~s. The Commission discussed the fact 5hat the County does refer matters to the City that come within a mile or so of the City limit l~nes. D~rector Warren noted that th~s is taking place in an unzoned area, and perhaps the County has l~mlted control over it, but apparently not. Member York questioned whether the County would refer it back to the City for recommendation, if the Commission asked them to make a study of this area. -15- Director Warren commented that they would probably discuss it with the staff. If a recommendation is make to the County, it should come from the Commission, and it should state that the County consider this problem and the feasibility of zoning this area - at least for a certain amount of frontage~ This should probably, for the time being, be agricultural zoning° Chairman Stewart asked the Director to draw up an appropriate recom- mendation over the area - and it should go as far out as the Junior College - since the uses put on this road are directed for this traff~c~ MSUC (York-Hyde) The D~rector draw up a recommendation to submit to the County covering the unzoned property fronting on Telegraph Canyon Road east to Southwestern Junior College. Workshop Meeting Director of Planning stated there have been changes proposed for the new zoning ordinance by the Council and Commission, and it may be necessary to call another workshop meeting to discuss these. The Commission discussed an appropriate night to meet, agreeing that it be a dinner meeting with everyone paying for their own dinner. Director Warren stated he will set th~s up and call the Commission as to the time and place. ADJOURNMENT MSUC ~Rice-York) Meeting adjourned at 9:15 P.M. Meeting ad3ourned sine die~ Respectfully submitted, ~S~a~ Fulasz ~