Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1967/03/06 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA March 6, 1967 The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on the above date in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Guava Avenue, at 7 p.m., with the following members present: Stewart, York, Hyde, Gregson, Rice, Adams, and Guyer. Absent: None. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Assistant Planner Lee, Junior Planner Masciarelli, City Attorney Lindberg and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Rice requested that his statement on page 2 concerning the rezon- ing matter on D Street, in which he states that property "fronting on Fourth Avenue be held in abeyance" should actually read property "fronting on D Street"... MSUC (Rice-Guyer) Approval of the minutes of February 20, 1967 as amended. Request for Approval of Signs - Proposed Restaurant in Bonita Plaza Shop- ping Center Director of Planning Warren submitted a sketch of the proposed sign to be erected at the Bonita Plaza Shopping Center for the Flaming Steaks res- taurant. He discussed the signs previously approved for the Center, and noted that this proposed sign was somewhat different. This sign involves cut-out letters and is within the 50 square foot maximum allowed; it would not be lighted. The two neon tube signs saying "cocktails" would be llghted. Member Adams requested that the matter be postponed until such time as the appllcant arrives. When it was noted that the applicant was present, the Commission continued discussion on the matter. Mr. Duane Cutler, representing A D Company Signs, stated the sign would consist of cut-out letters mounted on the roof parapet. There will be two of the neon signs - one on each corner of the building, and the words "cocktails" will be lighted. Member Adams suggested the letters be placed vertically on the parapet to hav~ some conformity with the other signs in this Center. Director Warren suggested that the precise location be subject to the Planning Department's approval so that consistency can be determined in the field. Director Warren commented that they should have started out with this par- ticular type of sign, for the Center, if they could be properly lighted. He then questioned the applicant on how this sign will be lighted. Mr- Cutler remarked that they could light this an one of two ways: neon lighted from the back or flood lighted from the bottom of the overhang~ He added that on the original plan, this type of sign was called for; they are conforming to what was originally designed for the Center. MSUC (Adams-Rice; Approval of sign as submitted with the condition that the letters be set vertically and in line with the other signs in the Center; the precise loca~aon to be approved by the Director of Planning. Since it is assumed that some sor~ of lighting will be ultimately neces- sary fo~ the large sagn, the manner in which this lighting wall be ac- commodated shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Planning~ Request for Deferral of Public Improvements (Cont'd) - Chula Vista Center - Garrett Avenue and Center Avenue Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location for the requested deferral of public improvements as the north sade of Center Street and the west side of Garrett Street; the curb as installed and the request is for deferral of sidewalks~ Sance additional construction is now going on in thas Center, the Division of Engineering has informed the owners that the public improvemenss must now be completed. Mr Robert Caplan, attorney representing the owners, requested another deferral of the sidewalks construction, until such time as there is a need for them~ He stated there is no entrance to the Shopping Center from these streets, and hence, no need for the sidewalks. It would be of no benefit to the tenants of the Center nor to the City as a whole. Mr. Cap- lan then dlscussed the need for more parkang spaces, as required by Ordi- nance, for the additional buildings under construction. He asked that they be permitted to get a certificate of occupancy for the building that has already been built, that, even though they feel there is no need for addational parking at this Center, that the paving and marking of these spaces be deferred untal some later time so that they can determine the number of spaces which they need and how they will provade them. Mr. Cap- lan commented that the existing ice cream building will be removed. Dlrector Warren explained the situ-atlon whereby construction of the new building at the Center provaded more square footage and consequently, the need for more spaces~ The owner is presently taking advantage of the pro- vas~on in the ordanance allowing him to use offstreet parking across the s%reet, since it is within a specified distance of the Center. Mr. Warren declared that the Commission should have some assurance that these parking spaces will be provided when needed; the applicant as requesting 120 days to which the staff has no ob3ection, provided a bond could be posted~ At the present time, there is no place on Center Street for a pedestrian to walk; there are trash containers in the street right-el-way now. The Commission discussed the requirement of posting a bond~ City Attorney L~ndberg stated this would not be an unreasonable request to make to assure that the paving will be done~ Member Adams questioned the need for 120 days. Director Warren explained that they feel they need this time since they will be removing the ice cream building and will haue to redesign thear parking layout and do not anticipate full occupancy of all floor space prior to that time. -2- Member Adams asked if the removal of this ice cream building will provide them with a large segment of the needed offstreet parking. Mr. Warren stated it would not; it would just be a "dent." They plan to accommodate 20 spaces on the south side of the Center. About a year or so ago, they requested a variance for their offstreet parking which the Commission denied° Mr. Caplan declared that at the time of the variance, the plans for the building to be removed were not considered; the building was to remain. Mr. Warren indicated that the staff would work with the applicant in the final plan and determine the number of spaces that they need. Mr. Caplan commented that they are lust requesting some time to get some idea of the traffic pattern for the Center - they would like to have 180 days. Chair- man Stewart declared that 120 days should be adequate. Member Adams remarked that the Commission should give them this advantage even though he feels their reason for the time period is not good; this postponement should be subject to the posting of a bond. Member Rice asked if the proposed development on Fourth Avenue was con- sidered for the request of installing the sidewalks. Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, pointed out that the chief consideration was that more of the property here has now been developed and that there re- mains no justification for deferring the construction of sidewalks any longer. Chairman Stewart commented that this area and the nearby Doctors' Park will generate a certain amount of pedestrian traffic now, and that the sidewalks should be put in. Member York questioned the criteria used in determining the need for sidewalks. Mr. Caplan indicated that the development to the east and across the street should be the justification for this. Member York asked if the development opens up onto Center Street. Mr. Caplan declared that the billiard room has a door opening up onto this street. Member Rice commented that if the parking was inadequate, then the peo- ple will have to park elsewhere, and consequently, the sidewalks would be necessary for them to use to get there. Mr. Caplan reiterated that they will put in these sidewalks when a need is demonstrated~ MSUC (Adams-Rice) Deferral of the installation of public improvements (sidewalk) along the north side of Center Street and the west side of Garrett Avenue adjacent to the Chula Vista Center be denied. The rea- son is based on the fact that the ordinance requires all property owners to install these improvements at the time of construction, and based on the recommendations of the Planning staff and the Engineering Division, it is felt that work on the Shopping Center has progressed to the point whereby sidewalks are now deemed necessary. New construction here in surrounding areas is such that pedestrian use of the street will increase. --3-- MSUC (Guyer-Adams~ Extension of time to provide supplemental offstreet parking: Approval of maximum time of 120 days in which ~o complete the paving and marking of ~hls area south of Center Street or provide an al- ternate conforming to zoning ordinance requlrements~ A bond, in the amount of $2,000 must be !mmed~ately posted with the D~vlslon of Engineer- lng to assure that such parking will be provided at the end of this time - July 9, 1967; such bond to be approved by the C~ty Attorney~ PUBLIC HEARING (Cont'd~: Proposed Ordinances Establishing C-V Zone and the Addition of Special Provisions to Existing Commer- cial Zones Director of Planning Warren stated he had gone o~er this proposed ordi- nance in detail at the previous meetings, but outlined it briefly noting that it was a visitor-commercial zone lifted from the new proposed zoning ordinance now under preparatlon~ It is primarily oriented to the freeway ~nterchanges and will accommodate ho~els, motels, restaurants and service stations. It sets forth sign regulations, height regulations, lot cover- age and criteria for s~te development~ This proposed ordinance was con- t~nued at the last meeting to give the newly formed committee of the Chamber of Commerce time to study lt. Mr~ Warren indicated that, to date, no ~eport has been forthcoming from this committee, unless a representa- tive is here to speak tonight. This being the t~me and place as advertised~ the public hearing was opened. Mr. Frank E. Fe~re~ra, 3715 Putte~ Drive, Bonita, noted on the General Plan the area of Bonlta Road and Vista Drive declaring that th~s was the only place in the City of Chula Vista where this C-V zoning was applicable~ The property is presently zoned C-I-D and therefore, as owner, he can s~ate he has no need fcr th~s C-V zoning at the present tlme~ He added that the Chamber of Commerce committee has not had t~me to study this or- dinance and make their recommendations. He asked that ~his matter be de- ferred until such ~lme as there is a need. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearlng was de- clared closed. Member Adams declared that they were not applying this zone to any speci- fic property, but merely considering the text of the ordinance so that it could be applied when approprla~e~ He added that waiting until there is a need for it would be too late as it takes at least 90 days to completely adopt an ordlnance. Member York stated that this tesz~mony solidifies his thinking on the matter. Although the Commission is not applying it at th~s time, it is also true ~ha~ the a~ea stated by Mr Ferrelra ~s the only area in the General Plan to which this area would be applied. The other reason would be the crit- icism of the public toward the Commission for li~ting these new proposed zones from the ordinance and adopting them on a piece-meal basis. Mr~ Yo~k added that he was not convinced that there ~s an urgency for adopting this proposed zone at this time. No one zone lifted from the proposed ordinance can be an ordinance under itself; other sections apply to either part of or all of the sections ~nvolved in the new ordinance~ In view of this and the apparent lack of urgency, we should defer this until the new ordlnance itself is adopted. --4-- Member Guyer suggested thYs proposed ordinance be referred back to the Chamber of Commerce committee for their recommendation. Mr. Warren indicated a desire to comment on what has been said before the Commission takes action. The Commission discussed this further and agreed to continue the matter until the next meetlng~ MSUC (Guyer-Gregson~ Matter be continued to the meeting of March 20, 1967~ PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - 463 Mlnot Avenue - B. W. and M~ M. Turegano - Request for Reduction in Rear Yard Setback from 20' to 12' The application was read in which a request was made for reduction in rear yard setback from 20' to 12' for the purpose of constructing an ad- dition to the dwelling. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the proposed constructlon~ He stated that the applicants are proposing two additions - one meets the zonmng ordinance requirements and the other, because of the layout of the house, requires the reduction of setback. The lot is small and on a corner and a great deal of the lot is taken up by setbacks. The applicants will be maintaining a quantity of open space adjacen% to their home that is greater than that required by ordinance. Member Adams questioned why that particular slde should be called the rear yard since the house faces on Minot Avenue. Mr. Warren explained that they had to take a choice and maintain a 20 foot rear yard on one side or the other. Member Adams commented that the front of any house Ks recog- nizable and that this should determine the rear yard. Member York com- mented that, presently, the applicants are encroaching into their rear yard and have a non-conforming use~ The Commission d~scussed the layout of the house and the setback requmre- ments, also those homes adjacent to this one. This being the time and place as advertised, the publmc hearing was opened. Mr. Turegano, %he applicant~ stated he was always under the impression - for the last 19 years - that his rear yard was at the east side of h~s home. There being no further comment, emther for or against, the hearing was de- clared closed. Member Rice felt this was a reasonable request° Member Guyer noted that there were exceptional circumstances that could be ]ustifmed concerning this request~ MSUC (Guyer-R~ce) Approval of variance. Findings be as follows: -5- a, That the strict appllca%lon of the zoning regulations or requirements would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsis- tent with the general purpose and intent of the regulations. The applicant has only 8 feet of b~lldable land remaIning to the east which wo~ld prohibit the construction of any usable room. The rear of applicant's house ~s oriented to the "s~de yard" as defined by ordlnance~ bn That 5here are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use o~ development of the prop- erty that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone or nelghborhood~ The usable rear yard ~s actually against the east property line while their required rear yard abuts their neighbor's side yard~ Sub3ect lot ~s smaller than ex~sting o~dlnance ~equirements and a disproportionate amount of the lot is taken up w~th setbacks. co That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or in3urlous to property o~ ~mprovements in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located, The ad3oinlng property owner can build to within 5 feet of the north property l~ne d. That the granting of a variance wlli not be contrary to the ob3ectives of the General Plan~ The applicant is still maintaining a larger rear yard area than normally required. PUBLIC HEARING: P~oposed Prezon~ng to R-3 - East Castle Park Study Area Director of Planning Warren stated that this study was conducted at the request of the City Council afte~ holding public hearings on two pre- zoning requests in this area, The hearings were continued at the Council level and will come up again on March 14; therefore, the staff has sub- m~tted th~s report~ Mr. Warren delineated the l~mlts of the study area and p~esented the re- port (which is on file ~n the Planning Department) to the Comm~sslon~ He then delineated the recommendations as follows: 1~ Area north of Quintard Street (5 lots) - prezone R-3-B-3-D. This zone would constitute a more logical transition ±rom R-1 to R-3 and affords reasonable protection ~or the R-1 subdlv~sion approved for the prop- e~ty Lu ~ne no~th~ The "D" zone would permit the Planning Commission to review the plans prior to the issuance of building permits to in- sure the compatibility of the proposed development with ad3acent resl- dentes. 2. Area south of Quintard Street (16 kotsl - p~ezone R-3-B-2. Th~s area is sparsely developed and is surrounded by a high school and proposed shopping cen~er, the San D~ego Gas and Electric R~ght-of-Way, a -6- traile~ park, add the property mentioned in No. 1 above. Because of the surrounding land use and the lack of existing development within the area, this property can be more densely developed with fewer con- trols required than the properties to the north~ 3. One parcel west of First Avenue - R-3. This parcel is already part of the trailer park and should be assigned the same classificatIon as that ex~stlng on the t~ailer park~ It was noted that a petition of protest to R-3 prezonlng was received. This being the t~me and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened~ Mr. George Edwards, 1394 Hilltop Drive, spoke of his construction plans saying he will demolish the existing building on the property and build two-story units, which will be 20 to 25 one-bedroom units. He declared the g~ade level here was the result of an Engineering error. He further stated that he preferred the B-2 density rather than the B-3 density~, Mr. Nick Besker, 1382 Hilltop Dr~ve, spoke of the numerous times he ap- peared before the Commission in the past year on this same request~ He questIoned the R-3-B-3-D zoning recommended for his property and asked if that was set up primarily for h~s propertyc Mro Warren explained the zoning, pointing out that this has been on the books for quite some time. Mr~ Besker stated that he is considering removing the existing dwelling on his parcel, but has not, as yet, made up h~s mind about th~s~ He de- clared his plans were to construct 1 unit per 1,000 square feet of land area, and is now surprised to hear the recommendation of 1 unit per 3,000 square feet. He will have to start his planning all over again, if the Commission approves this prezoning. Mrs. June Curtis, 1450 Tobias Drive, spoke of the area as a n~ce neigh- borhood in which to raise a family, and declared that the residents here are opposing the R-3 prezoning because they are afraid of gettlng another SLJ apartment complex in the area. They prefer to have the zoning remain as ~t ls~ Mr. R~chard Crocker, 1431 Tobias Drlve~ made reference to the petition he circulated noting the number of property owners opposing the R-3 prezon~ng~ Mr. Floyd Burgi, 67 Qulntard Street, described the area, noting the loca- tlon of the schools, and asserted that apartments are not wanted in th~s v~clnity~ Mr. C~ Kiffee, owner of land in the area, discussed his contruction plans for 85 units lnto 3 separate phases He said he will not be constructing anything cheap, but something that will enhance the area. Mr. Kiffee then spoke of the shortage of available land in this area; his attempts to buy ad3acent land, and the rough topography which makes building difficult, Mr. John Guillory, 20 Qulntard Street, indicated his approval of the R-3 zoning. Mr~ Besker and Mr. Edwards spoke again, this t~me assuring the Coramlsslon that they w]li not be constructing anything ~nferior - nothing that will be compared w~th the JLJ apartment complex~ -7- Chairman Stewart indicated that the Commission has no control over the type of construction that might result° This being the t~me and place as advertised, the public hearing was closed. -- Director Warren noted that whatever action is taken by the Commission would be prezonlng, and 5his would not be effective unless the area were annexed to the CiLy~ Chairman Stewart declared there is no ~ustlfication to prezone this to R-3 and he favors prezonlng to R-i, ~n view of the fact that the General Plan calls for low density development and trends in the adjacent area have been to single-family use~ Prezoning must be based upon more than an applicant's desire and a drainage problem. Member Adams agreed, adding that the topography was as much a problem to R-3 development as to R-i~ The Commission discussed the two R-3 prezonlng requests now before the Council; Mr. Stewart felt that they woald be setting an undesirable pre- cedent if they approved this prezonlng~ Director Warren discussed the statements made by one of the property owners who is contemplatlng on building apartments~ He noted that be- cause this property owner has not been able to acquire ad3acent property, h~s grading is such that l~ will not work for single-family development. Chairman Stewart fel~ he should walt until sufficient property ls avail- able which he can acquire and get the development he wants~ Member York commented that he opposed a similar request because it would be spot zoning and there is no R-3 contiguous to it~ However, in study- ing th~s area as a whole, ~t seems to be the feeling of the City Council that R-3 zoning for these particular parcels has some merit, but they were also concerned with the fact that if they did approve the R-3 zon- ing, they would get s~ml~ar ~eques~s from the ad3acent property owners. For this reason, they requested that the staff look at the area as a whole, in order to determine whether or not R-3 zoning would be appro- priate for the entire a~ea Mr. York fel~ the topography here was one fact to be considered. The area as shown on 5he map lends itself to either R-3 or R-1 zon~.ng, but there seems to be no clear cut case fo~ either justification to R-3 or R-l; however, the prlnc~pai objections to R-3 were from people that want to maintain the status quo in the a~ea, and this is unreallstlc. Mr. York added that economics would dictate that, in the future, there w~ll not be 1 dwelling on a 5 acre parcel. He declared he would be in favor of recommending to ~he City Council that this area be prezoned R-3 with 5he density control as recommended by the staff. Member Guyer agreed, adding that this area Is ou5 of the center of town and will allow needed multiple-family deveiopments away from the center of the c~ty. Member R~ce felt the desires of the people shc~f~ be considered, and they want R-1 zoning If some of these parcels were prezoned R-3, they would be faced with spot zonlng~ -- -8- Member York disagreed, remarking that if the area were prezoned R-3, there would be no more single-family development. Chairman Stewart commented that the feelings of the City Council as they relate to the overall are not, at this time, appropriate to guide them in this matter, that they have to make a determination based on their own feelings. Director Warren reviewed the land use in the area° Member Adams noted the number of small lots and felt they would be faced with undesirable multiple-family developments here~ Member Hyde commented that the homes that have been built in this adja- cent area were low-cost and felt it might be better to promote R-3 if a better grade of development would result. He explained he was referring to the homes ~n Judson Estates and JLJ apartments. MS (Guyer-York) The entire area be prezoned R-1 with these exceptions: the 5-acre area between Tobias and Hilltop Drives north of Quintard be prezoned R-3-B-3-D, and that 5-acre parcel between Tobias and Hilltop Drive, south of Quintard be prezoned R-3-B2-D. The findings being that the area recommended for B-3 density would be compatible with that area to the north, and the B-2 density for the southern parcel would also lend itself to the surrounding area and the building area 'to the north. The other property owners tha~ do not want this R-3 zoning should not have it imposed on them now, but at some future date if desired~ The motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: Members Guyer, York NOES: Members Hyde~ Gregson, Stewart, Rice and Adams ABSENT: None MS (Hyde-York) The area north of Quintard and west of Hilltop Drive be prezoned R-3-B-3-D and the remaining area south of Quintard in this study be prezoned R-3-B-2-D; also that small parcel west of H~lltop and part of the trailer park be prezoned R-3o The motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: Members Hyde~ York, and Guyer NOES: Members Gregson, Stewart, Rice and Adams ABSENT: None MSC (Rice-Adams) That the entire area be prezoned R-1 with the exception of tha~ parcel west of First Avenue which ~s recommended for R-3 zoning ~ince it is a part of the trailer area~ Flndings be as follows: 1~ The General Plan designates this area as medium density residential which corresponds to the R-1 classification. 2. The developmental trend in the area is for single-family dwellings - a 42 unit R-1 subdivision is presently being planned for property immediately adjacent to this area. --9-- 3. To prezone any isolated parcels in this area R-3 would create spot zoning. 4. R-1 zoning would be compatible with the surrounding area and no evi- dence was submitted that the County zoning is invalid. 5. A petition of property owners in protest of proposed R-3 zoning in this area was received. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Members Rice, ADams, Gregson and Stewart NOES: Members Guyer, York and Hyde ABSENT: None City Attorney Lindberg explaIned that regardless of the determination of =he Commission, the Council will be free~ at such time as this report is submitted to them, to modify or render the zoning for those two prop- erties now under consideration. The Commission action on the remaining property is a denial of the R-3 zoning or the modification thereof, and if anyone desires to appeal this to the Council, they have 10 days to appeal. Member Rice commented that they could recommend R-1-D for this area~ Member Guyer questioned the need for the "D" zone; Chairman Stewart noted it would be attached to the R-3 zoning. Director Warren declared that if the single-family zoning were going into that area, most of it would be developed subject to a subdivision. The reason for the "D" zone for the R-3 requests was because of the substan- tial R-1 development existing in the area. C~ty Attorney Lindberg reiterated that the decision of the Commission is that the area including the two parcels under consideration for R-3 pre- zoning at the Council level, be recommended for R-1 prezonlng~ At their meeting of March 14, the Council will be considering action for these two parcels, and should they desire to consider R-3 prezoning for the remaIning area, ~t will come back to the Commission. PUBLIC HEARING: Request for Vacation of Port~on of Whitney Street, Eas~ of First Avenue Director of Planning noted the request received from the property owners ad3oining Whitney Street asking that a portion of this street be vacated, aisc a petition signed by the remaining property owners on this street in favor of this request~ The City Council will also have to hold a public hearing on this matter.. The property owners state there is no need to extend this street; there is a bank at the end of this street. Mro Warren added, that in the Plan- ning studies, the staff finds that the adjacent area can be served from I Street and the area also has access to Hilltop Drive. The staff rec- ommends approval with the condition that any necessary utility easements -- be reserved. The Commission discussed the advantages and disadvantages of a cul-de- sac~ Mr. Warren commented that there were many advantages to having a cul-de-sac street provided that it is a local residential street° This being the time and place as advertised, the publlc hearing was opened. Mr~ Steve Hargas~ 53 Whitney Street, discussed the grade at ~he end of this street sta~lng that if a street were extended, there would be a cut of between 10 and 12 feet, There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Rice felt the request was reasonable because of the topography, and the access to this property could be made from another location~ Member Adams stated be was satisfied with the recommendations of the staff. MSUC (Hyde-Gregson) Recommend approval of the vacation of a segment of Whitney Street, east of First Avenue, subject to the reservation of any necessary utility easements. Findings are: 1. That this extension was reserved for a future street to serve the property to the east; however, the elevation of this parcel is con- siderably h~gher than the street and a large amount of earth movement would be needed to extend this street through the easterly parcel. 2. Any development of the parcel to the east would logically use "I" Street from which to extend a street to serve it~ PUBLIC HEARING (Cont'd): Variance Poutous Development and Saratoga Development Corporation - Request for Reduction ~n Lot Size - Area North and East of Flair Subdivision The application was read ~n which permission was requested for a reduc- tion in lot s~ze from 7,000 square feet to a minimum o~ 6,000 square feet fo~ the development o~ sing±e-family homes on a 10-acre parcel of property located north and east of Flair Subdivls~on~ Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, ad3acent land use and zoning~ He stated the Commission had previously granted a variance on all the property ~n this subdivision f~r 6,000 square foot lots because the City was requiring retention of the canyon to the north and that to the east~ Mr Warren then sub- mitred the original map and the revised map noting the additional 10 acre parcel under consideration. He also pointed out a 4 acre parcel at the southerly end of the subdivision which ~s being eliminated. Mr~ Warren then delineated the square footages of the proposed lots, open space, etc~ and indicated that the or~ginai plan showed a total of 8345 'square feet of area per lot including open space and th~s new revised map proposes 8430 square fee5 per lot, The subdivider indicates that an addmtional .8 of an acre of open space ms being provided. He further added that the staff is now working on a plan whereby for any further development mn this area, the City will be able to acquire the remaining portion of the canyon Thls being the tmme and place as advertmsed~he public hearing was opened~ Mr~ Dennis Wmttman, Saratoga Development Corporation, spoke of the type of house ~hey are constructmng and the gradmng of the first unit of thei~ subdmvislon. The open space concept was worked out jointly by the staff and themr organmzation Mr. Wlttman declared that they have now used up all the available land in the Flair Subdivision: to the north is the Greg Rogers Park, to the west the Interstate 805 Freeway, to the south the canyon which he stated would have to be developed in~o 7,000 square ~oct or larger lots by virtue of the terramn alone. To the north of this subdivmsion is 27,000 acres owned by United Enter- prmses who are not presently planning to sell their property. Therefore, the only property available ~s this 20 acre parcel, 10 of whmch has been purchased by the school dmstrlct for an elementary school site~ The remamning 10 acre parcel should logically be tmed to this program~ Mr. W~ttman explamned that in the original map, they were proposing an ave- rage size lot of 6,800 square feet, and now they will have 7,020 square ~eet~ There being no further comment, emther ~or or against~ the hearing was declared closed. The Commission dmscussed the lot areas. Chairman Stewart questioned whether the lots delineated were usable building sites. Director Warren indicated they were although some of them may not necessarily be 7,000 square feet as some of them have slopes. Member Guyer remarked tha~ he was pleased that the park area has been mn- c~eased. Chairman Stewart questmoned the 4 acre parcel taken out o~ the subdzvm- s~on. Mr Wlttman sta~ed this belonged to a Mr. Lauderbach who has since decided to hold onto his land until such time as the a~ea is de- veloped. The Commission concurred that this plan was better :han the original plan. Director Warren asked that some provision be made to eliminate the 4 acre parcel from the original varmance~ City Attorney Llndberg stated this should be done in the motion s~nce mt is a modification of the ormg~nal variance. MSUC ~Adams-Rice) Approval of varmance subject to the following condi- tions: 1. The approval of an acceptable tentative and final map reserving sub- ]ect canyons as usable open space and showing that a proper living environment can result with the reduced lot si~es. -12 Generally, all lots shall have a minimum of 60 feet frontage, with the exception of certain lots on curved portions of streets and cul-de-sacs (whose width shall be 60' at the front setback llne~. 3, The four acre parcel at the southern part of the subdivision is hereby deleted ~rom the original variance granted for adjacent prop- erty. Findings be as follows: a~ That the strict application of the zoning regulations or requirements would result in particular difficulties or ~nnecessary hardships incon- sistent with the general purpose and ~ntent o~ the regulatlons~ Without thls variance, the applicant is deprlved of developing a density as zoned or is required to fill natural canyons in a manner as an aesthetic detriment to the area~ b That there are excep%ional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use or development of the prop- erty that do not apply generally 5o other property in the same zone of ne~ghborhood~ The total subdivision property is generally more rugged than that to the west and involves two canyons which cannot property accom- modate home sites~ The six additional acres involved in this re- quest is the result of an addition of 10 acres minus that portion to the south 4 acres which ~s hereby deleted from the subdi- vlsion~ Even w~th the addition of slx acres to the total subdl- vlsion, the density of development has been decreased. c~ That the granting of a variance w~ll not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or in~urious to property or improvements in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located, The density of developmen~ will be the same as in ad3acent subdi- vislons, In addition, open space will be preserved in a manner which will enhance ad3acent development~ The building pad sizes wll± be approximately the same as for ?~000 squa£e feet, d That the granting of a variance w~ll not be con%rary to the objec- tives of the General Pian~ The Plan sets forth a density of development which will be observed with the retention of compensating open space. $~SDIVISION - Flal~ <Revised Tenta~ue Map) Director o~ Planning War~en submit%ed the revised ~entative map noting that it contains 72 acres involving 309 lots and is located north of Princess Manor Unit ~4 and east o~ the proposed Inland Freeway. Olean- der will serve as a collector street, and the school will be served by the street ad3acent to its site. The school d~strict will be providing ~ the other one-half of the street. Presently, the only access to this subdivision is from Princess Manor~ and ultimately another street from Orange Avenue will give access to this subdivision. The subdivider will be constructing Oleander Street to the northerly edge of their ownership - this will be in Unit #4; however, the Fire and Police Departments may want the street constructed prior to the need to serve access for the emergency vehicles. Mr. Warren then reviewed the staff's recommendations of approval, commenting on one of the corner lots which he felt was un- desirable because it would contain 230 feet of stree5 fronsage and would have little back yard. Mr. Warren discussed the manner in which some of the lots on the revised map encroach upon the canyons, particularly the canyon to the east° He sta~ed that when the fill is accomplished for this easterly t~er of lots, that this portion of the so-called "natural open space" will be almost eliminated. The subdivider, however, has indicated that these slopes will be graded at a maximum of 3:1 and will be well landscaped in a man- ner acceptable to the staff~ Mr. Howard Gesley, Asslstan5 City Engineer, presented the Engineering conditions for approval~ He elaborated on the condition of requiring the 28 feet for a street section opposite lots 126-132, suggesting that the subdivider obtain the right-of-way from the school district for this section of the street. Chairman Stewart asked if the Fire and Police Departments have been con- tacted regarding this revised map. Director Warren stated that no written comments were received from them. On the original map, they felt the canyon could be adequately served with their services. Mr. Wittman commented on the conditions, remarking that they are in agreement with the condition of providing 28 feet of right-of-way; how- ever, he feels it should be strictly up to them as to when they go about it, and presently, they plan to construct this street at the time the adjacent unit is developed. Mr. Wittman then discussed topography of the area commenting that they aIe "riding along the edge" of the park area and when the houses are constructed, they will appear to be rolling off into the park; there will be a 3 to 1 slope. He also in- dicated that Mro Warren's comments about their treatment of the canyon slopes is correct. Mr. Wittman then commented on the lot mentioned by the Director of Planning as having an excessive amount of street front- age. He determined that it was difficult to eliminate this problem on a tentative map; however, after the grading is completed, they may pos- slbly pick up a foot here and there and work out something for this lot~ In reference to the small piece of property which has been excluded from the subdivision, the City Attorney stated that the deslgn of the map be worked out so that the City is not left with an oddball piece of prop- erty and this should be accomplished before the acceptance of the final map. Mr. Wittman commented that they are trying to think ahead and design something that will also meet the needs of a future subdivider of this ad3acent property. Mr~ Gesley questioned whether the approval of this map would give the City 3ust 23 feet of street r~ght-oi-way next to the school slte~ City Attorney Lindberg explained that one of the conditions of approval was that ~he street be 28 feet; before final map is approved~ the subdivider must provide the City with dedication for the full improvement. Chairman Stewart suggested a lette~ be written to the school district re- questing them To dedicate and pay for one-half of this street~ Mr. Wittman declared that they have gone out of their way to cooperate with the school dls~lct; they have changed their design many times~ He added that the s~a~f has received a let%er from the school district voicing their approval of the revised map. Director Warren questioned requiring the school to submit a letter, but felt the staff would have something in writing from them stipulating that this street will be put MSUC (Guyer-Yorki Recommend approval oi revised tentative map of Flair Subdivision subject to the foliowing conditions: 1 The general conditions listed as approval of the original tentative map, wherever appropriate~ shall still apply relative to gradin9~ slope planting~ ~rrigatlon o~ slopes and an agreement for dedication of open space, etc 2. Lot 178 which is at ~he corner of two cul-de-sacs appears to be un- desirable and it ~s recommended that this area be re-studied to provide for a more acceptable lot pattern. 3. The final grading usually determines the desirability of lots and frequently renders undesirable what may appear desirable on the tenta- '' rive map. A grading plan of each unit shall be submitted with each final map. 4. A small parcel which has been deleted from the subdivision, south of Lot 79 and east of A~enue "A", shall be either deeded to the City or the adjacent property owners ox' shall be reserved for future d~s- posal ~n a manner acceptable to the C~ty Attorney which will prevent the permanent existence of substandard lot destined to become a weed patch 5~ Prior to the recordation of Unit No. 4, the subdivider shall have made arrangements with the owner of that land opposite lots 126-132 so that a minimum street section of 28 feet w~ll be provided~ It would be desirable that the ultimate street section be constructed at the t~me development on the south side is contemplated~ 6~ Adequate planting of slopes shal~ be accomplished subject to the approval of the City Engineer and Directo~ of Planning and the plants shall be maintained until they are fully established. Bond for this work will not be exonerated un~il th~s has been fully accompiished~ 7~ The subdivider shall acquire and dedicate to the City an easement for sewer purposes along the southerly prolongation of Avenue L through property owned by Princess Manor, Inc~ He sha~l construct a sewer through this easement to a suitable location in the southerly prolonga- ~ tion of Oleander Avenue. -15- 8~ The sewer line in Lots 286 and 273 shall be curvllinear and the angle point eliminated. 9~ The grant deed for one ~oot lo~s shall be prepared in the name of the City, signed and submItted to the City prior to the recordation of f~nal map. 10. All public ~mprovements shall be constructed subject to the appro- val of the City Eng~neerr 11. The subdivider shall post a bond for the street improvements, in- cluding street l~ghts for Oleander Avenue northerly to the tract limit prior to recording Unit #4. 12~ The units of development shall be in an orderly manner, subject to the approval the City Engineer and Director of Planning. 13 Some off site drainage construction will be necessary, such as at the southerly end of Avenue L and east and south of Lot 260~ 14- A sewer line shall be constructed between fots 257 and 258 with an additional manhole in Avenue L. RESOLUTION - Grantlng Extension of T~me - Conditional Use Permit for Prop- erty South of Davidson Street Between Fourth Avenue and Garrett Street - Department of Public Works - San Diego County Director of Planning Warren referred to a letter received from the Direc- tor of Public Works, San D~ego County, requesting a three year extension on their conditional use permit granted them in September, 1963, for a governmental branch office on the F Street school site. They submitted a schematic plan w~th a court building and a welfare building. Mr. Warren commented that there have been some informal discussions that they m~ght be looking for addItional land. The staff recommends the ex- tension be granted; however, they should be encouraged to discuss their plans wlth the staff so that the C~ty could be kept up to date on their plans and coordinate our plans accordingly. MSUC (York-Hydei Approval of a three year extension of time on Conditional Use Permit application # C-63-3-A, with the request that representatives of their department charged with the responslb~i~ty of planning the use of th~s property meet w~th the Planning staff to d~scuss their current plans for development. The C~ty of Chula V~sta ~s currently considering specific development for their ad3acent property and coordinatIon between the two cities ~s most essential. R~SO~UTION - Granting Extension of T~me - Conditional Use Permit for Property at 351 H Street - Lienhard and Lawton D~rector of Planning Warren stated that a letter was received from the applicants requesting a two-year extension on their conditional use per- mit granted them in August, 1964. They indicate that they need more t~me to complete their plans and construction and to obtain financ~ng~ -16- Mr. Warren declared that, under the present ordinance, the time limit for a conditional use permit is 6 months, unless otherwise specified and granted by the Commisslon~ The staff would recommend that this be increased to a period of one year. MSUC !York-Rice~ Approval of two-year extension of time on Conditional Use Permit # C-64-10~ Chairman Stewart directed the staff to initiate proceedings to amend the zoning ordinance granting a one year time period for conditional use permits~ To Be Set for Public Hearing - Consideration of Permanent Zoning for Certain Properties Now Interim Zoned Director of Planning Warren briefly discussed the areas which are now interim zoned, asking that the Commission set a date for public hearing whereby these areas may be permanently zoned~ He suggested the first mee%lsg in April~ MSUC (Rice-Gregson/ April 3, 1967, be set for the public hearing to consider permanently zoning certain properties now interim zoned. Discussion - Proposed S%reet Name Changes - National Avenue between L Street and Moss, and Bonita Bridge Dlrector Warren discussed the request received from the Division of En- gineering for a street name change of that section of National Avenue between L Street and Moss which has been annexed to the City but which still bears the name of National Avenue while the remainder of this street is known as Broadway~ They request this section be changed to Broadway~ The staff would recommend this also, and Mr~ Warren added, the Commlss!on could forward this recommendation to the Council without holding a hearlng~ As to the other name change, for Willow Street: there are presently two Willow Streets in the C~t~, and since that section in the Valley is constantly referred to as Bonita Bridge, the staff would recommend this be changed to either Bonita Bridge Road or Bridge Road~ However, the staff would recommend that a public hearing be held on this segment of the request, s~nce the residents in this area should be notified of th~s proposal. The Commission discussed this and concurred with the DIrector. MSUC ~Rice-Gregson) Recommend to the City Council the change of name for that sec%ion of National Avenue between L and Moss to "Broadway." Also, that April 3, 1967, be set for the public hearing to consider the name change of Willow Street ~n the Bonita Valley° Discussion - City Council Request for Changes to Proposed "I-R" Zone Director of Planning Warren requested ~hat this be taken off the agenda and considered at a later date~ -17- Discussion - Proposed Revision to Third Avenue and Civic Center Area Sketch Plan Director of Planning Warren stated that at the time of the adoption of the General Plan, the consultants prepared a Sketch Plan for the Third Avenue Civic Center area, a copy of which the Commissioners have. This was also presented to the Council and the Downtown Association - it was a suggestion and not prepared for adoption, so no action was taken. Because of the proposed uses of the F Street school site, the Council has asked the Commission and staff to review this plan, revise it, etc., with a goal of recommending it for adoption. Presently, the Council is trying to reactivate the Community Facilities Committee; four of the original members will be serving again and the other 4 or 5 members will be chosen by the Council. This committee will assist them in planning for the expansion of governmental facilities and to guide them in the general planning of City-owned property. Most of the planning work will be the work of the Commission and staff based on the recom- mendations of this committee, and the staff would like some direction f~om the Commission as to how to pursue this. Mr~ Warren suggested that perhaps this could be discussed at a workshop meeting, and that they could wait until the entire committee Ks appointed and what their as- signment Member Adams felt the Commission should look this over and make some decision and pass this onto the committee, and then they could bring at back to the Commission with their suggestlons~ Director Warren said he hoped they could call upon this committee and get their advice prior to the Commission's making any recommendations for changes in this Plan. This committee will be calling upon the staff for guidance. Mr. Warren added that he has recommended that a member of the L~brary Board, Parks and Recreatlon Commission and the Planning Commission be appointed to this committee. City Attorney Lindberg stated that whale this Community FacIlities com- mittee is being reactivated, the scope of their duties has not been defined, but they will be getting into all the aspects of the community planning and they will be coming back to the Commission. Director Warren asked if the Commission would want this Sketch Plan presented to the committee. Chairman Stewart said they should receive a copy along w~th any modification the staff may have. They, in turn, should come back to the Commission with their recommendations. Mr~ Warren felt that before any action Ks taken, the staff should wait untll this committee is appointed, thelr responsibilities defined, and then be authorized to make a presentation to them; however, he feels this should be first discussed at a workshop meeting. The Commission concurred, and left it up to the staff to determine the date of the workshop meeting. Workshop - March 13, 1967 Director Warren asked if the Co~ission would want this next workshop meeting to be a dinner meeting~ They agreed it should be and requested that the time be set at 6 p.m. instead of 6:30 to allow them to get an early start. The Sunnyside Steak Ranch was the meeting place agreed upon~ ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Member Rice questioned what happened to the lot split ordinance~ City Attorney Lindberg stated he is holding this up but will have it ready next week. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (York-Gregson) Meeting adjourn to the workshop meeting of March 13, 1967, at the Sunnyside Steak Ranch, Bonita, at 6 p.m. Meeting adjourned at 11 p.m. Respectfully submitted, nie M. Fulasz, Secretary -19-