Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1967/04/03 MINUTES OF A REGULAR C!TY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF CHULA V~STA~ CALIFORNIA April 3, 1967 The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on the above date at 7 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Guava Avenue, with the following m~mbers present: Stewart, York, Hyde, Gregson, R~ce, Adams, and Guyer. Absent: None. Also present: Associate Planner Menganelli~ Assistant Planner Lee, Junior Planner Masciarell ~ C~ty Attorney Lindberg, City Engineer Cole, and Assistant C~ty Engineer Gesley. APPROVAL OF M~NUTES MSUC (Adams-Gregson) Approval of minutes of March 20, 19673 as mailed. PUBLIC HEARING - Consideration of Permanent Zoning for Certain Properties Now Interim- Zoned Associate Planner Manganelll noted the locations of the areas under considerat~o~ arid recommended that they be permanently zoned with the same interim-zoning the7 m.~w b~ar. The one exception would be the 164.7 acres located at the southwest corner of Otay Lak~ Road and Allen School Lane presently interim=zoned R-l-B-lA but advertised for permanent zoning to R-l-B-20 or a more restrictive zone. Mr. Manganelli explained that th~s was done to afford the Commission the opportunity to consider one-half acre zoning for property, if they so desire. He reviewed the topography of the area noting that ~xt~s~ve grading would probably have to be accomplished to create half-acre lots. It was f~ reason that both the Council and Commission had applied one-acre zoning to the property until such time as a subdivision map would be filed which could prove that t~ere wo~ld not be a reoccurrence of the type of intensive grading that took place ~n the Bo~ta Bel=Aire Subdivision. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Gordon Cromer, 319 East L Street, stated he was one of the owners of this (Otay Lakes Road and Allen School Lane) and asked that the Commission consider this property separately from the others. Mr. Paul Seng, 3964 Acacia Street, Bonita, representing the Sweetwate~ Valley Civic Association, declared that this Association opposes any zoning in the Valley where there would be some degradation to the adjoining lands. In this case, they wish to state that they are in favor of one:acre zoning for th~s area behind the Allen School. They are fully aware of the problems encountered ~n the Bonita Bel-Aire Subdlv~sion and since the topography is the same for this area, it should dictate the zoning. Mr. Cromer remarked that he was concerned over th~s and assured the Commlss~on that they have no intention to degrade the area. It puts the property at a tremendous d~sadvamtage if it is zoned one-acre. He said they have been trying to sell the property fo~ a number of years and are now considering selling lots for custom~built homes. They cannot f~nd a buyer for one-acre lots. When this land was ~n the County, it was zoned for one-half acre lots, and upon annexation, they were assured by the City that it would remain e~e® half acre. There being no further comment, either for or egalnst, the hearing was declared closed. Member Guyer asked if the staff had heard from any other owners. Mr. Me~gane~l[ commented that o~y o~e property owner ~n the area contacted the off,ce. Member York questioned whether the Commisslor~ had control over the grading of the s~bd]vis[on when They f~te this map. City Attorney Li~dberg stated that ~ deta]]ed grading ordinance [s now under study. Presently, the City has maximum grading requirements. Member Adams noted that the Comm~ss]o~ h~s overall control whenever a subdivisJo~ map ~s presented for co~siderat~o~ and if the Commission feels that grading would De too extensive, they can dlsapprove the map. He felt [t was much better to leave it one-acre zoning a~d t~ke action on certa[~ lots if necessary when development pla~s are bro~§ht ~n. Member York commented that if the CommJsslo~ has no control over the grading a~d the ordinance does not allow for averagir~g of lots, t~e size of the lots they can eed up w[th would not be too desirable - some being oversized lots~ etc., and this could stymie the development. He felt it wou]d be wise to consider the half-acre lots here. Member Adams decJared that this property does not lend itself to one-half acre ~ot$. Member York commented that this was true for soma portion of the property; however, the Commission does have control over the subdivision maps and if the lots were zoned for 20,000 square feet maximum~ it would give the developer a little more leeway for flex~ b~lity in developing his subdlv~s~on. To hold him to a one-acre zoning would not be just since there is very little market today for that size of lot. Chairman Stewart noted that the last time a subdlv]sJon map was filed for that area~ the subdivider had too many one-half acre lots, and the map wasn't acceptable. A great de~ of this property does not i~eed one-acre lots, but some sections may need more. Mr. Stewart commanted that it was a lot easier to grant concessions on the one-acre lots than it was to raise the o~e-half acre lots. fie felt the Commission should hold t~> the one-acre lots, and suggested that this item be postponed until such time a~ ~he ordinance is ch~mged and a zoning more appropriate for the area is adopted. Mr. Cromer agreed to the postponement adding that they feel they are being penalized for someone else:s development ~cross the street. Chairman Stewart explained the Pla~ed Unit Development zone and felt this would be the most appropriate zone for the area. Associate Planner Ma~ga~elli e×p~a]ned the provision in the Code whereby the average area of lots could be computed on a gross density basis = Jt allows a lot area reduction of 25 %. Chairma~ Stewart remarked that even this wouldn't satisfy the goal the developer has ~ m[~d. Mr. Manganel]i stated there was no problem in eliminating this are~ from the public hearing ton~ghto C~ty Attorney Li~dberg noted that the developer would have the right of appeal to the Council. He ~uggested that the Commission just drop the matter. Member Adams fe~t th[s should be delayed until such time as the Planned Unit Developmer~t ordinance ~s in effect. City Attorney Lindberg explained that the interim zoning procedures followed previously allowed for interim zoning for an u~stated limit of time; now, it is 90 days b~t s~;~ce th~s interim zoning was established prior to the ordinance, Jt can be filed for the present. F~e asked if the Commission could set a date on this. Mr. Cromer asked if this matter would be accomplished within the next 6 months. Cha~rm.~n Stewart replied that~ hopeful!y, ]t might be accomplished within a year. Member Adams felt that some explanation should go along with the Commission's recommend~~ tion to the Council ~ they should give some reason why they postponed this matter. Member York commented that it was hard to have findings for postponement, unless ye~ state that at this time~ the Commission does not have the necessary controls to regulate a logical subdivision for one-half acre zoning for this area and zoning it to one-acre lots would create a hardship on the owner and would be against his wishes. City Attorney Lindberg noted that in this interim period, the owner still has the o~e-acre zoning. RESOLUTION NO. 461 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommendlng to the MSgC (Guyer-York) City Council Permanent Zoning for Certain Properties Now Inter~m- Zoned Findings be as follows: a. It is good zoning practice to permanently zone all interim-zoned areas in the City. In the future, all property proposed for annexation will be prezoned according to the provisions outlined in the recently-adopted administrative procedures and thus~ the use of interim~zoning procedures will not be minimized. b. No action was taken concerning the 164.7 acres located at the southwest corner of Otay Lakes Road and Allen School La~e presently interim~zoned R-l-B-lA and co~= sldered in this public hearing. The Commission directed that this particular property be returned for reconsideration at such time as the proposed new grading ordinance is adopted or a subdivision map for this area is filed. SUBD:VISION - Windsor Park - Tentative Map Associate Planner Manganelli submitted the tentative map explaining the location ~s that property located at the northerly terminus of Melrose Avenue north of East J Street and abutting the west side of the proposed Inland Freeway. The area encompasses 18 acres a~J will be subdivlded into 65 s~ngleifamily lots. Mr. Manganelll noted the alignment of the proposed 805 Freeway which will cut off access to the adjoining property to the north. He suggested that this matter be continued and the subdivider directed to provide access to the northerly property by revising the northwest portion of the map to provide a stub street from the cul-de-sac northerly. Mr. Charles Pearson~ representing Wittman Engineering Company, 3511Cam~no del R~o~ stated they have no objection to putting this street through; however~ due to ~egot~at~ with the F.H.A. and State Division of Highways~ they are asking for some official ~ct~on by theCommission. Chairman Stewart felt it should be a temporary c~l~de-sac giving this access. Mr. Manganelll commented that this m~ght be accompllshed in the street right-of~way. Mr. Lane Cole, City Engineer, stated there would be no problem with a temporary cul-de-sac; however, this should be considered at the time the map is submitted and not at this time. _ MSUC (Adams-Hyde) The map be ret~r~ed and the northwest portion of this map be revised to provide a stub street extending northerly to the abutting property from the cul~de=s~c shown in this area and the lots rearranged accordingly. S~SDIV~SiON - Holiday Estates Unit No. 3 - Final Map Associate Planner Manganeli~ scbmitted the tentative map noting the location as along the east side of Hilltop Drive north of Main Street. This unit will contain 50 lots. Mr. Manganell) then discussed two problems which are outstanding on the tentative map; one concerning the reservation of a lot for a future street to afford access to the property to the east which the applicant is providing, and the other condition was that the staff shou)d work with the developer to provide an east-west street between Jasper Avenue and Hilltop Dr)ve. This condit)on was inserted at the request of one Commissioner who )s no )onger serving on the Commission. The staff feels that adequate access to H)lltop Drive for residents and emergency vehic)es is provided by Orange Avenue and Jade Street, and recommends deletion of this conditiono The Commission d)scussed this co~ditlon with Member Adams comment)~ that there [s no reason for a street there, and he )s in favor of deleting )to MSUC (Gregson=R)ce) Approval of the final map subject to the following conditio~Js: 1. That the following condition imposed on the tentative map be deleted since access to Hilltop Drive as presently proposed is sufficient: 'rThe staff shall work w[th the developer )n providing an east-west street between Eilltop Drive and Street ';E". if they cannot come to any agreement on th)s, then the matter should come back to the Planning Commission." 2. All slopes shall be graded and planted in accordance with specificat~ons on file in the Planning Department with the type of plant material used on slopes subject to the approval of the Director of Planning and City Engineer. 3. The final map shall not be submitted for Council action until all fees are paid and ail necessary bonds, deeds, slope rights and easements, as required by the City Engineer, have been delivered to the City. 4. The subdivider sha)l deed Lot )09 along with the necessary road easements o~ [.ot )10 to the City of Chu~a V~sta. Said Grant Deed and road easements are required to provide for future access to the adjacent property to the east. if it )s not necessary to construct a road through Lot )09, then at the end of lO years, the road easement on Lot 110 will revert back to the owner of Lot at that time. The fee ownership to Lot 109 will revert back to the grantor, his he)rs, or assigns. PUBLIC ffEAR~N6 ~ Conditional Use Permit to Establish School of Equitation ]n A-D Zone at 3956 Otsy Lakes Road ~ Michael C[ntas The application was read in which permission was requested to Locate a ,school of equitation on a 2.04 acre parcel zoned "A". Associate Planner Manganelli submitted a plot plan noting the area, the adjacent l~nd and zoning. He stated that the applicant is proposing no changes to the physical layout of the property. He will be using the facilities for the training of horses and riders ~n the art of h~nter-jumpi~g and will also board horses on the property. These classes w~ll be on an ~ndiv~dual basis rather than group classes. This being the t~me and place ~s advertised, the public hearing was opened.' -4- My'. Michael Cintas, 3956 Otay Lakes Road, the appllcant, requested that the appllcatlon be changed to his parent's name = Mr. and Mrs. M. D. Cintas - since he is a minor ~18 year's of age). He remarked that he has been instructing in San Diego now for one year, and presently is traln~ng for the 81ymp~cs. He talked to the people in the neighborhood and found no objections. Presently, he has a clientele of 15 people. There are 14 horse stalls ~n the barn and there is a workshop on the premises which could be converted to four additional stalls. The maxlmum number of horses he would handle would be 18. Chairman Stewart asked ~f he would conslder thls as a condition. Mr. Cintas asked ~f th~s couldn't be dictated by the number of horses one is allowed on so much square feet of property - he would rather accept this on that basis. Member Guyer asked if there would be any r]dlng done outside the fence. Mro Cint~s declared the rld~ng would be done only ins]de the fence; the students here would be under a contract. Mr. Paul Sang, Bonita, stated he w~s:s not representing the Sweetwater Valley C~vic Assoc,= at,on in this matter slnce he was unaware of this item until now. He asked if this permit would affect the access roads to the adjacent properties. Chairman Stewart assured h~m that it would not. There belng no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Chalrman Stewart felt the conditlon should be ]mposed whereby the number of horses ~s limited to 18. The Commission d~scussed this and concurred that the limitation should be imposed. MSUC (Guyer~Rice) Approval of conditional use permit subject to the follow~ng cord~t~.~ 1. That the approval ~s based on a l~m~tatlon of 18 horses which may be sta~led or~ premises. F'~dings be ~s follows: 1. That the proposed use ~t ~:he p~rti~uJar locatio~ ~s ~ecessary or desirable to provide a servlce or f~c]lity whlch will contribute to the general well-bei~g of the ~eJghSorhood or the comm~[t¥o The area in which the s~Sject property is located ~n are~ where cons]der~b~!e ir~terest ~n horsemansh]p arid horse~oriented act~v~tles ]s evident. Yh]s f~c]l~ty w~ll provide the people ir~ this area an ©pport~ty to p~rt[c]~ate ]n this type of ~ct~v]ty. 2. That such ~se will not~ ~der the clrcumsta~ces of the particular case, be de:rime~ts~ to the health~ safety or general welfare of persons res[ding or working ~n the v~cln]~y~ or inj~r]o~s to property or ]mprovements in the v~cinity. The stumbling ~d tr~]~g of horses is already being conducted on the property. The proposed use would be quite s]m]iar to t~t wh]ch has taken place on this property for ~ number o~ year's wlthout ~ny app~rent detriment to the are~. 3. That the proposed use will comply w]th the regulations and conditions specified i~ the Code for such use. No regu!~t]ons or condJtlons are specified in the zoning ordinance except those which the Commission m[ght impose. The animal control ordinance and County he~Ith ordi~:~nce will regulate th~s activity to a large degree. 4o l'hat the granting of th~s co~ditlon~l use will not adversely affect tha~e~er~l P~i~ of the City of Chsla Vista or the adopted plan of any governmental ~gency. The Plan wou!d ~t be ~ffected by the ~pprov~l of th~s request. P,;~LIC HEARING (Cont"d) - Variance for Reduction in Setback and Increase in S~n Are~ ,for Service Station at the Southeast Corner of Bonita Road and Bo~t~ S~en ~:rive - Shell O~l Compan% The application was read in which a reduction of setbacks was requested for the purpose of erecting s~gms ~n conjunction with the proposed ~erv~ce station previously approved. Assac!~te Pl~ner Menganell~ submitted a plot plan noting the location of the proposed service station and the adjacent zonings. ~e also noted the location of the proposed 805 Freeway. Mr. Manganelli then delineated the s~ze and location of each of t~e signs requested° fie commented that th~s service station is similar to the one at Telegraph Canyon Bo~d and qa]ecrest Drive, for which the Commission approved a non-rotating m~du]~r s~gn, the s~gns on the building, one price sign and one stamp sign, The ~taff [$ recommending the same for this service station, Tn~s being the time ~nd place ~s advertised, the public hearing was opened, Mr. Ray Powell, representing Shell Oil Company, stated that the 180 square feet: o~ s~g~ ~rea :s not the actual square footage they are requesting, The s~g~s on the pylo~ are being treated as two signs whereas they consider it one since it is joined t:hroug~ the pylon, Tr, is reduces the square footage by 25 feet. Mr, Powe!l disc~sed the s:gns on the building and the pylon stating this was part of their architectural treatment and not in the same classification as the signs proposed for the curbs, ~e then described the r~nc~:type building to be construct:ed and detailed the square f~otage of each of the requested signs, Mr, Powell maintained that the service station on Telegr~qoh Canyon ~ozd was built with the anticipation of only one arterial : ~t tm~s particular location, they are antlcipat~ng a need for both Bonita Road and ~o~ Glen Drive; therefore, the need for s~gns on both streets, Mr, Powell then stated that they would be willing to go along w~th the recommendations as proposed by the staff~ hoping that ~n the future, they would be able to come. back to the Comm~s~o~ and ask for these other s~gnso Mr, Pawet~ was asked t~e he~g~t of the proposed overpass on ~onlta Road, M~. FTank F'erre~r~, 37115 Putter ~ive~ ?onita, stated it would be 24½ feet, Mr, Mangeme/t~ asked if Mt, Powell understood that the modular s~gn would be non~, rotating, Mr, Powell stated he d~d, There being -~ f;rther commeqt, e~ther for or against, the heerlng was declared closed, Member ~uyer declared that ~e f~und the staff's recommendations reason~bleo ~ember Ad~m~ d~scdssed the 2~ x 3~ sign on the light pole = he noted that these poles are permitted !~ from the property llne ~nd they are strictly light poles and should n~t be used for t~e signs al~o~ t~ey should be kept clear, He felt the t~ad~mg stamp sign should be on the pole tVat supports the 8: x 8~ sign, and this pole should observe a 5 foot setback, Member R~ce noted the excess of square feet of sign area over the 50 square feet a~lowed for this supplementa~ '~D'; zome, He added that just the one word o~ the sign denotes not only the name of the b~iness~ but the type of service, etc. The Commission d~scussed ~t length the s~ze of the signs approved for the station at Telegrep~ Canyon Ro~d and the ones proposed for thisservlce station, They concurred that they would go along w~th the ~ecommemdations of the staff, Member York asked if there would be any problems with the driveways in changing the set backs here. Mr. Manganelli declared there would be none. MSUC (Adams-Guyer) Approval of variance request subject to the following cond~t~on~: l. The freeistandJng Shell sign at the front of the property measuring 8 rotating, standing not higher than 33" and located 5 feet from the property llneo 2. One 4' x 5" frame price s]gn in the front of the property set back a minimum of tO~o 3o One 2" x 3' trading stamp s]gn to be located on the sign poleo 4. One slogan sign on building face 1' x 18.5" as shown on elevation° 5. Two 5~ x 5~ buJldlng signs located on the pylon. The total area of all signs would be 153.5 square feet. Findings be as follows: 1. That the strict application of the zoning regulations or requirements would result in particular dlfficult]es or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the regulations. Other variances of a similar nature h~ve previously been approved Jn the recogn~tlon that a strict appllcatJon of the 50 square foot requirement in the "D" zone would cause an unnecessary hardship on service stations within that zone. 2. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone or neighborhood. The setbacks ~s pro posed are primarily to keep the building back from the front property line to assure proper vision and traffic safety - the signs as proposed would not v~olste th[s criterion. Other stations in the '~D'~ zone have previously been granted s~gns Jn excess of the 50 square foot maximum. 3. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such zone or neighborhood in which the property Js located. Historically, setbacks in commercial areas have been reduced for such s~gns and, while the sign area would be substantially i~rger than the "DTM zone perm[ts~ it is considerably smaller than a large majority of stations throughout the City. &. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Piano Will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan since the s[gn requirements are compatible with others located throughout the Cit~ and would have no effect on the goals of the General Plan, PUbLiC HEARING - Variance for Reduction in Setbacks 20' to 15' and 20~ to 12" = Wood~wn and Oaklaw~ Avenues South of "H" Street I Diversified Enterprises Associate Planner Manganell~ explained that the applicant has revised his plan necessitating a readvertisement of the matter. City Attorney Lindberg stated that this partlcular appllcatlon should be filed. MS~C I~fde~Rice) Variance request be f]led~ the Commission will consider the new applicatio~ at such time as it [s readvertised. PZBL~C HEARING - Establ]sh]nq Spec]flc Plan Lines - Port[on of "H'~ Street at ]~tersect~en of Ota¥ Lakes Road to a Point 6800~ West C~ty Engineer Cole explained that last year the Council requested a study be made regarding the location of H Street in the v[cln~ty,of Otay Lakes Road. The Engineering Givi~]on~therefore~ submitted a study known as the'H Street Feasibility Study whlc~ encompasses the total length of H Street from hilltop Drive east to the San M[guel Freeway. 1he study was preliminary [n nature, and the Council was desirous of more ~format]o~ Jn making a more exact determination. Mr. Cole read a letter from the Cou~ty Road Dept.~ concer~ng this segment of the road, and said he discussed th~s with them. Route 2 North would be 99~5 l]near feet from point to point and wo~Id cost $834,200 (Route #2). Route #~ South would cos~ $583,000 and be 9450 linear feet [Route #J). The difference ~ cost is due to the amount of excavation i~cl~d~ng a~d dra]rage. As far as prof[le~ are concerned~ the County has come up w~th a des]g~ that ~s comparable to the City's. Mr. Cole ~oted that the subdivision originally planned for this area would have to be revised, a~d a tentative map resubmitted. Mr. Cole added that the administrators of Southwestern College had no object~ons to Route #1 South and fe~t that upon their ultimate development (football stadium)~ it wo~ld provide excellent access. He noted that the C]ty accepted 50 feet of right=of= way but did not dedicate this. Jt w~s accepted before any precise Jnformat~o~ wa~ available on the alignments. The General Pla~ shows the alignment as ~orth of the h~gh school. Mr. Cole added that it would be the recommendation of the Engineering Division that they concur with the flnd[ngs of San Diego County and recommend Route #i South, and so change the General Plan to avoid the heavy cost of developing Route North. The Commission discussed the d~fference in construction costs. Mr. Cole noted that r~ght-of=way costs for Route #2 North would be $116~200 and Route #1 South would be $110,600. Chairman Stewart q~est~oned whether the County wou~d participate in the cost of th~ road for that port,on ~n the County. Mr. Cole commented that they have always w~ll~ng to participate. They indicated that they did not want to participate ~ the cost of this street as ~t was proposed sometime ago - they declared they had other reeds then. If there is a vaild need shown~ then they would participate. · 'he Commlss~on the~ d~scussed the ~te~changes wit~ the San Miguel and 805 F~eew~s. Mr. Cole explained t~e need for this Specific Plan Line at this time. The owners of this area had development pla~s and requested more information from the Council gard~ng the proposed roads in this area. Member York commented that the same things would apply to this area as did that to the T[delands- that ~s, putting the property owners on notice as to where the roads w]Jl go so t~at they will be aware of this for future developments. This being the time a~d place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Dick Chase, 280 K Street, o~e of the owners of the property in the area which is ~ow commercially zoned stated they are requesting that the H Street alignment be e~stablished so that they can go ahead with development of their property. He commented that Otay t~akes Road was not a fit road for the students who have to travel this road to the college; Jt Js very heavily traveled. As pointed out by the C~ty Engineer, there will have to be two roads out here: and Route # 2 North is the road they are in favor Ofo It is a shorter route and a straighter road and less hazardous. Member Adams questioned whether it was worth the difference in cost to construct this alignment° Mro Chase indicated it would reduce acoidentSo Ne added that it was of little significance who bears the burden of the cost here as they pay both city aha county taxes anyway° There being no further comment~ either for or against~, the hearing was declared closed. RESOLUTION NO~ 262 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to NSUC (Gregson-,Hyde) the City Council the Specific Plan Lines for Portion of H Street at Intersection of Otay Lakes Road to a Point 6800~ West. Findings be as follows: l~ Good Planning practice requires the adoption of Specific Plan Lines for ~e alignment of a portion of H Street at the Intersection of Otay Lakes Road to a point 6800~ west as Route #1 South on the map included in the City Engineer's report entitled: "H Street F~tension Feasibility Study~" dated ~!arch 17~ 1965o 2o That said Specific Plan Line be forwarded tc the City Council and recommended to the City Council that they adopt said Specific Plan Line by resolution pur- suant to the provision of the State Planning Act° PUBLIC HEARING ~ Proposed Street Name Change - Willow Street in Sweetwater Valle~ Associate Planner Manganelli explained that there are two Willow Streets withLn the city limits; one is located in the Trousdale Industrial Park and the other in Bonita commonly referred %o as "Bonita Bridge." After this matter was set far hearing~ it was learned that the South Bay Freeway and the Sweetwater River flood control channel as presently proposed will ultimately cause the complete removal o~! the ~Yiilow Street located in the Trousdale Industrial Park and thus eradicate the conflict° Because of this~ the staff recommends %hat no action be taken on this matter° MSUC (Guyer-Rice) No action be taken on this matter based on the explanation of ~he Associate Planner° (Cant'd) Clarification of Conditions of Variance Granted to Paul Hook at 125 Carve Maria Street Associate Planner Manganeiii rew~ewed this ~mtter which was continusd from the 2asr meeting° The applicant originally requested a variance to split two parcels from the original parcel and use a 20 foot easement for access. The Commission apprcved this with a few conditions~ three of which pertain to the street improve~entso The appli- cant has built his home here and offered the street for dedication .- he has pu~. in a temporary pavement on a portion of it~ but objects to putting full etree% improvements on for the entire length. He feels each property owner should be required ~o pu~ in their own improvements° Chairman Stewart noted this would be for one-half on the street for the entire length° He indicated that Lot Naa 1 could be required to put in their improvements ~3nder ~he 1911 Act° C~ty Attorney Lindberg stated this would be done if there was a definable block and more than 50 % of the improvements were made. At the time the subdivision is put ~n on the southerly side, the subdivider should put in the entire street improvements. The property owner of Lot #1 has already granted an easement here, so there ~s no question of acquiring this street in the future. Mr. Lindberg added that the applicant bought property in front of Lot #1 for the easement. Member York noted that this entire easement on Corte Maria is for the benefit of the property owners of the rear lots; now, Mr. Hook is contending that he not be responsible for the improvements on this first lot. Mr. Paul Hook, the applicant, explained that when the area south of h~s property ~s subdivided, he would be w~lllng to put in the improvements in front of h~s lots. He objects to the condition o~ paving - he had no idea that he was going to be required by the C~ty to post a bond. Member York asked if the agreement included curbs and gutter. City Attorney stated it includes the full improvement of the one-half street on Lots 1, 2 and 3. Member 6regson questioned whether the applicant would still be I~able for the street improvements in front of Lot 3, ~f ~t wasn"t built on. Member Adams stated he would be liable only when it is ~mproved. Chairman Stewart noted that the applicant has put in temporary paving and indicated that he is liable for the permanent paving. Mr. Hook stated he understands that but questioned the necessity of having to po~t a bond. Chairman Stewart explained the need for a lien on the property in order for the city to be assured of future street improvements. City Attorney Lindberg indicated that the street could be put through by the tgil Act. They would require the subdlv~der of that area to the south to put in his one-half street for its entire length, and in order to assure the City that improvements will be made on that portion for which the applicant is assuming responsibility, he must post a cash bond or lien on the property. At such time as the City gives h~m not~ce to put in these improvements, they could enforce the l~en to pay for it. Mr'. ~ook declared he did not want to put a lien oa his property, for his family's sake. Chairman Stewart reminded the applicant that when he buys a certain piece of ,aw property, there are ~mprovements that must go in. Should the Commission waive this requirement for the applicant, then it means the general public must pay for ~t; there- fore, it is the duty of [he Commission to .require improvements for this raw land. Member York commented that th~s requirement is not unique in Chula Vista - the applicant would have this same requirement in 8ny other city. Mr. Hook claimed he talked to a number of people I lawyers included - and was totd that people are generally given more time to make these improvements ¢ a number of years, in fact. The Comm~sslon d~scussed the conditions of the resolution. City Attorney Lir,dberg stated the agreement was prepared from the mlnutes of the meeting. Upon reviewing the resolution, the C~ty Attorney stated the conditions only apply to the deferred improvements. A band or lien should be posted for the deferral of the asphaltic concrete ~mproveme~to Member Adams declared that permanent improvements are required at the tlme of develop: ment, whether or not it is st:a[ed as such in the minutes or resolution. City Attorney Lindberg noted that the deferral was granted, and that the City can rely on the 1911 Act for curbs and sidewalks. He explained that the deferral was for a period of three years after such time the applicant must put ]n the permanent improve= ments. In the meantime, a bond or lien must be posted. Mr. Hook stated he strongly objects to this. He indicated that all but four feet of what he would put in would be torn up at the t]me the subdivision to the s o~th goes [n. At such time, he would be willing to put in h[s permanent improvements ]f the grade was established. City Attorney L]ndberg reiterated that the applicant was granted a deferral for a period of three years, after which he [s llable for the permanent improvements on the entire length of the easement. Assoc]ate Planner Manganelli indicated that since this was not spelled out clear]y [~ the resolution, he would suggest a continuance and a verbatim record of pertinent testimony be made from the tape of the original public hearing. Member Gregson commented that there was no problem in not posting any bond. Member Adams disagreed declaring that the applicant is liable for the street Jmproveme~ts for the other lot when it is improved. Mr. Hook remarked that he offered this for dedication; however, the city has not accepted it, and that he does not object to putting in his share of the street improvements. The Commission discussed this further and concurred that it should be continued for' a period of four weeks in order to get more information and thus clear this matter up. MSUC (Rice-Hyde) Matter ~s continued for a per~od of 4 weeks. Approval of Annexation - Quintard Annexation No. 1 Approval of Annexation - Kiffe~s Quintard Annexation The Commission dec~ded to consider these two together. Associate Planner Manga~elli submitted a plot plan noting the location of the properties. Quintard Annexation involves 5 parcels of land totalling 5.54 acres located at the northwest corner of Hilltop Drive and Qu]ntard Street. The Council recently prezoned this area Kiffe~s Annexation concerns 4.13 acres located at the southwest corner of Hilltop Drive and Qu]ntard Street. This property was also prezoned R-1-B-3-D by the Council. Mr. Manganelli added that these annexations were approved by the Local Agency Forma~ion Commission, and the staff would recommend approval. He further stated that Mr. Kiffe h~s [ndJcated that he has withdrawn from the annexation, and the property owner~ for the other annexation are not sure now of annexing.- that unless the property owner~ sign the petition to annex~ the Cou~c[1 would not be able to consider it. MSUC (Adams-Guyer) Recommend approva~ of t~ QuJntard No. 1 and Killers Qu[ntard Annexations. RES~LUT~0N - Grantln~ Extension of Time - Variance - Property ~ 742 Al~ Street = F. W. Sweat Associate Planner Manganel~i explained that the applicant was granted a variance on OctoSer 3, 1966 to split a parcel conta~nlng 12,768 square feet into two lots~ upon one of which he would construct a three bedroom dwelling. Ne has not been able to start construction of h~s house because of f~nanclng, etc., and is requesting an extension of 6 months ~n order to accomplish this. M~UC (Rice-Gregson) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Grant~ng an Extensi~n RESOLUTION NO. 463 of Time on a Variance for F. W. Sweat for Property at 742 Alpine Street The approval is for an extension of a six-month period of time. Variance will now expire on October 3, 1967. Recommendation - Removal of Junk Yard Adjacent to Princess Manor Associate Planner ManganellJ noted the location of an auto junk yard adjacent to the rear property lines of dwellings located on the west side of Melrose Avenue north of gray Valley Road in Princess Manor. This Js in the county, and the owner has a permit to operate this junk y~rd which w]ll expire on July 21, 1967, unless an extension is granted. The staff: would suggest that the Commission recommend to the Council that they send a letter to the County Board of Supervisors requesting that they not grant an extension for this buslness; with the removal of this business, it would be more in keeping w]th the adjacent residential area. Chairman Stewart commented that he visited this s[te and found little evidence of activity going on. The Commission should also object to it on the basis of their not conduct[ng any business out there. Member Adams declared it was also not in accordance with any zonJng that exists there. MEUC (Bice=Gregson) Comm[ss]o~ strongly recommends to the City Council that they request ~he County Board of Supervisors to take whatever action necessary for the removal of this ~uto junk yard business up~)n expiration of the permit. Workshop Associate Plan~er Manganell] stated that another workshop meeting should be scheduled for' e[ther Wednesday or Thursday of th~s week to review the draft of t~ zonlng mrdinance. The Commission d]sc~ssed the nights and agreed to meet on Wednesday n~ght at 6:30 in the Conference Room. AOJJ~RNMENT MS~C (dyde-York) Meeting adjourned to Wednesday, April 5, 1967, at 6:30 p.m. in the Ad~nin]str~t~ve Conference ~oom~ C~v]c Center. Meetlng adjourned at 9:50 p.mo Respectfully yours, ~Fula~z Secretar~