HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1970/05/18 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING
OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
May 18, 1970
The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on the
above date beginning at 7 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Guava
Avenue, Chula Vista, Ca. Members present were: Rice, Stewart, Macevicz,
Chandler, James, Adams and Hillson. Absent: None. Also present: Director of
Planning Warren, Associate Planner Lee, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant
City Engineer Gesley.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Chandler-James) Approval of minutes of the meeting of May 4, 1970, as
mailed.
PREZONING AND REZONING (Continued) - 1411 and 1425 Third Avenue plus 12 parcels
east of Third Avenue - from C-2 and R-2-A to C-T and R-3 and rezoning
from R-3 to C-T. Setbacks requested: 10' on the commercially-zoned
land and 15' on the R-3 zone - Jennings & Mary Lou Hom and Commission
Director of Planning Warren submitted a location map noting the properties in
question, the adjacent land use and zoning. This hearing was continued from
the meeting of April 4, 1970, to allow the staff sufficient time to restudy the
entire area. The County Planning Department has been studying the entire Castle
Park area and will be submitting their proposals to the residents in this area
very shortly. The staff feels that a complete zoning study of the area extending
to Orange Avenue would be a duplication of effort at this time. Therefore, the
staff is reiterating their previous recommendation for the C-T zoning along
Third Avenue. Mr. Warren then reviewed the objections stated for the recommenda-
tion of the R-3 prezoning adjacent to Quintard Avenue which will become effective
upon the approval of a Precise Plan for the development. He added that the staff
reaffirms the previous recommendation for the rezoning and prezoning to C-T for a
depth of 222' along Third Avenue and prezoning the remaining area adjacent to
Quintard to R-3. This should become effective upon Commission approval of a
Precise Plan.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was reopened.
Speaking in favor of commercial zoning for their properties were: David Liedike,
354 Moss Street, owner of one of the six parcels in question on the south side
of Quintard Street; Mrs. Liedike, 354 Moss Street; and David Wilson, 275 Quintard.
They stated: -- there is a dental office in this area now which sets a precedent
for further co~mnercial zoning; traffic lights have been installed at the inter-
section; a Big Bear market is proposed for the area across the street; County
Planning Department has not informed any of the residents of this area of their
rezoning study; they have had offers for their properties for insurance offices;
there is a need for this expansion of commercial zoning in this vicinity.
There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
2
Member Chandler commented that there was no question but that C-T zoning was the
logical extension zone to be placed on Third Avenue; however, he felt that what
the people testified to for Quintard was more of a C-0 type zone which they wanted
instead of the R-3.
Director Warren remarked that if any type of commercial use were to be approved
here, it should be the C-0 in order to congregate these types of uses along the
shopping centers; the staff still feels that there is sufficient commercial
zoning along Third Avenue to accommodate these uses.
Member Hillson questioned what would happen to the lots behind those in question
on Quintard.
Director Warren declared it has been acquired by the applicant and developed in
conjunction with that zoned R-3 to the south. The Commission may want to ask for
a Precise Plan on this.
Member Stewart stated he felt the C-0 zone was not incompatible and in view of the
fact that they have buyers for some of these properties, he would favor the C-0
zoning.
Member Adams commented that there was a question in his mind as to where they
are going to stop this commercial expansion. If this is approved, there will be
further requests for commercial along this street.
Member Hillson indicated that C-0 zone would be a very good buffer here between
the commercial and the multiple family. The Commission concurred.
Director Warren informed the Commission that the hearing would have to be
readvertised if they are going to consider C-0 zoning for these parcels.
Chairman Rice stated that this was intended by the Commission at the last hearing.
MSUC (Stewart-Chandler) Staff be directed to readvertise this hearing for the
meeting of June 1, 1970 in order to consider the proposals made for the C-0 zone.
Director Warren stated he would readvertise it for the C-T zone and the Commission
can recommend a more restrictive zone, if they so chose.
VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING - 580 Hilltop Drive - Increase in identification si~n
from 24 sq. ft. to 32 sq. ft. - St. Mark's Evangelical Lutheran Church
Associate Planner Lee submitted a plot plan of the area, noting the property in
question, the adjacent land use and zoning. He explained the applicant's proposal
as requesting permission to erect a 16 sq.ft, sign which would be located approxi-
mately 210 feet north of "I" Street on Hilltop Drive and would set back, on a
slope, a distance of 15 feet. This sign would be in addition to the existing
16 sq. ft. sign. The ordinance allows a church a 24 sq.ft, sign and thus, the
request represents an increase in sign area of 8 sq.ft. Mr. Lee submitted a
sketch of the proposed sign, explaining that the sign would be triangular in
shape, 6' high and 12' long at the base. The design of the sign is compatible
with the architecture of the church. The staff is recommending approval of the
request.
3
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Orville Killalea, 448 Hilltop Drive, Vice-Chairman of the Building Committee
of the Church, stated the sign was designed by the same architects who designed
the church.
There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
The Commission discussed the recommendations and agreed that it should be granted.
MSUC (Adams-Macevicz) Variance be granted. Findings be as follows:
1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the
owner exists.
The property is located on a corner of two streets making identification
desirable on both streets.
2. That this variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of sub-
stantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zone and in
the vicinity of the subject property.
The maximum sign area for churches does not distinguish the need for
additional signs between interior lots and corner lots.
3. That the authorizing of this variance will not be of substantial detriment
to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of this
ordinance or the public interest.
Because the slope on which the sign would be located, the sign would not
appear very high and would blend into the background.
4. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of
the General Plan.
The General Plan is not affected.
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - 1179 E. Frontage Road - Request for approval of
directional sign measuring 8' x 16' - Frank & Anthony Balistrieri
Associate Planner Kenneth Lee submitted a location map noting the property in
question and the location of the business establishment. The applicant is
requesting an 8' x 16' wooden sign, 5' above the ground located on the property
line of Walnut Avenue and 3' from access paving to the Palomar Inn and Palomar
Inn Motel. The C-T sign ordinance, as proposed, would allow a maximum area of
10 sq.ft, for directional signs onsite but does not provide for offsite signs
which are defined as billboards and are not permitted in the C-T zone.
Mr. Lee explained that the need for this sign was caused by the widening of
the freeway in this area; the frontage road was vacated subject to the provision
that an access easement be provided to Palomar Inn. There is a need for a
directional sign to the Palomar Inn; however, the staff does not find any justifi-
cation for the pro~tions submitted, and is, therefore, recormmending approval
4
of a sign with the condition that it be a permanent metal structure, single-pole,
interior lighted sign. The staff feels that the sign, as proposed, would be a
continual maintenance problem and is unsightly in appearance. Further, it is
recommended that the design and location of the sign be subject to staff approval,
and contain no more than 20 sq.ft, and be no higher than 10'o
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Frank Balistrieri, co-owner of the Palomar Inn, stated that the sign was
already up and painted but does not have the printing on it. They have obtained
permission from the property owners to place the sign on this site. There would
be no maintenance problem as it would be to their advantage to keep the sign
looking good. Because of the location of the sign, it needs to be bigger than
20 square feet in order to be seen, especially at night. Mr. Balistrieri added
that if this sign is not permitted, he would like permission to paint the sign
on the side of the building that is on the premises.
Director Warren explained that this would require a variance since it would be
an offsite sign.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
Member Adams felt the Commission should take note of the fact that when they
granted approval of a conditional use permit to place this building on the
property, the three supports were there, and they are part of the clean-up of the
premises that were to be done in connection with the granting of the conditional
use permit.
The Commission discussed the proposed sign and concurred with the recommendations
of the staff.
MSUC (Hillson-Macevicz) Denial of the request for an 8' x 16' wooden sign.
Approval is given for a sign containing no more than 20 sq.ft, and no higher than
10'. The sign shall be of permanent metal structure, single-pole, interior lighted.
The design and location of the sign shall be subject to staff approval.
Findings be as follows:
1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the
owner exists.
Vacation of the frontage road and the realignment of the access easement
has eliminated direct street exposure.
2. That this variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of sub-
stantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zone and in
the vicinity of the subject property.
The easement is not easily identified as access to the applicant's
establishment.
5
3. That the authorizing of this variance will not be of substantial detriment
to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of this
ordinance or the public interest.
There would be no adverse affects to adjacent properties.
4. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the
General Plan.
The General Plan is not affected.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 135 Highland Avenue - Request to use
a 50' x 125' area for storage purposes (zoned I-R-F) - Handyman of
California, Inc.
Associate Planner Kenneth Lee submitted a plat of the area noting the flood channel
and the proposed freeway route. The applicant is requesting permission to add a
50' x 125' storage area to their existing location at 135 Highland Avenue. The
operation of the business establishment would be discontinued upon freeway and
channel acquisition and construction. A 7' high chain link fence with three
strands of barbed wire on top will enclose the area. Mr. Lee commented that in
the staff's report, a recommendation was made to condition the approval on the
fact that no floatable material would be store in this area. However, upon
further investigation, the staff feels this condition should not be imposed -
it would serve no purpose as it is a temporary use and is intended to be an
expansion of the present storage area - for lumber, plant material, etc.
Director Warren added that the applicant has indicated his need for this storage
area, and the staff believes that a business, perhaps starting from scratch,
could have this condition imposed. It would, however, serve no purpose in
imposing this condition in this case.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Herbert Heinson, representing Handyman, stated that if they had this condition
imposed, it would preclude what the storage area is intended for. They wish to
store lumber in this yard. When they get condemned out of this area, they
plan to build a larger facility elsewhere. Mr. Heinson added that the request is
no different than what they are already doing.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
The Commission discussed the request and agreed that it should be granted.
There was a question as to the legality of deleting the condition regarding the
storage of floatable material.
City Attorney Lindberg stated he could see no problem in deleting this condition
under the circumstances here, since it is not specifically required by ordinance.
It is a condition that could properly not be imposed, under the circumstances.
The existing facility has been there for some time--they have the problem as it is,
but the City is trying to make sure that the development within this flood plain
will be as secure as possible in the event of flood.
6
Member Macevicz stated he would like to see some limit of time imposed on the
approval of this request--just in case the freeway and flood channel do not go in.
Mr. Heinson explained that the property was owned by Nob Hill #2 - a partnership.
The storage area is owned by Home Federal which they plan to lease on a monthly
basis.
The Commission discussed the time limitation and agreed on 5 years.
MSUC (Chandler-Adams) Approval of the conditional use permit based on a five-year
limitation of time.
Findings be as follows:
1. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable
to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general wellbeing
of the neighborhood or the community.
The additional storage would allow the applicant greater flexibility in
the services offered.
2. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or
working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
The addition would be in keeping with the present store operation.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified
in the Code for such use.
It will comply with the present regulations.
4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect
the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista or the adopted plan of any govern-
mental agency.
It will not affect the General Plan.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 16 Loualta Way - Request for private
elementary school in R-1 zone - Joseph and Marie Schnitter
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plat of the area noting the property in
question. This is an existing dwelling in an R-1 zone which the applicants are
proposing to use for a private school; it encompasses 1 1/4 acres. They state
they will enroll about 30 children possibly expanding to 50. Mr. Warren referred
to the material sent to the Commission from the applicant explaining her views on
the request and the Montessori system of teaching. Pictures taken by the applicant
were shown to the Commission. The dwelling is located on a 30 foot wide easement,
approximately 260' north of H Street and on the west side of Hilltop Drive. The
ages of the children would run from 5 through 8, and the hours of operation would
be from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. The applicant intends to use a station wagon for transporting
the children to and from the school. Six parking spaces are delineated on the
plans for the school use--4 for the instructors and 2 for the vehicles used for
transporting the students. The staff believes the site for a school this size
should be larger with better access to the street and are, therefore, recommending
denial based on the adverse affect this would have on the neighborhood because of
the noise and traffic that would be generated. Director Warren stated a petition
has been received in protest signed by 77 residents representing 69 property owners.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mrs. Julia Ann Cave, realtor, representing the applicants, felt the people in
the area were misinformed about the facts concerning the school. She explained
the general layout of the site, the play area, the swimming pool, etc., and
stated the particular site was chosen because of it seclusion. Mrs. Cave explained
the method of teaching the students and added that where they are so interested
in learning,they are not busy making noise.
Speaking in opposition were: L. A. Henke, 460 Vista Way (representing all of the
property owners who signed the petition); John Higgin, 498 Vista Place; Bradley
Smith, 468 Vista Way; Mrs. J. Rosales, 486 Hilltop Drive. They stated as their
reasons: (1) it is strictly a residential area and they want it kept that way;
(2) the proposed school would take away their privacy; (3) it will devaluate
the monetary values of their properties; (4) there will be a definite noise fac~or--
with one home only 20' from this dwelling; (5) the easement is also shared by
another property owner wbo must back out onto it.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
Member Hillson commented that he is concerned about the safety of 30 children
attending this school. With just this easement and in this crowded area, he
questioned what would happen in case of a fire. If the Commission grants this
request, he feels it would be a serious breach of faith to the home owners in
the area to allow a commercial business here. He is opposed to granting it.
The Commission concurred.
MSUC (Macevicz-James) Conditional use permit be denied based on the fact that the
proposed school would have an adverse affect on the neighborhood due to the amount
of noise that would be generated, the increase in traffic, and the limited size
of the site.
Chairman Rice advised the applicant of his right to appeal this decision to the
City Council within 10 days.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Continued) - Southwestern College_g~ates,
Unit No. 7 - Mobilehome Park - Allied Contractors, Inc.
Director of Planning Warren stated this hearing is closely connected with the next
item on the agenda - the tentative map for this subdivision, Units 5-6-7-8. This
particular unit is #7. This particular item has been continued so that it can
be heard in conjunction with the proposed subdivision. The original proposal for
the mobile home park involved 24 acres; however, a revision was made to the map
8
to accommodate a collector street as required by the County. The site now
measures 26 acres, and there is an additional 4 1/4 acre lot proposed for R-3
zoming which abuts the mobile home park next to Otay Lakes Road. The developer
proposes 208 sites or a net density of 8 trailers to the acre. The staff
recognizes the need for this type of housing; however, the plan itself is schematic
and sterile and should be redesigned in order to add some interest. Mr. Warren
then reviewed the conditions of approval covering landscaping, site plan,
incorporating the proposed R-3 lot into the park design, and general development
requirements.
Member Chandler asked about the collector street - whether this is to be tied
in with Acacia Avenue to the north.
Director Warren indicated he had mixed emotions about it. The County feels
strongly about the need because of the topograhy of the area. As far as the
staff is concerned, at this point, approval of this subdivision does not commit
an extension of Acacia - another route north may be chosen.
Member Hillson questioned only one access going into the mobilehome park.
Director Warren indicated the developers may be able to provide another access.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened,
Mr. Richard Kelton, 5109 Waring Road, the developer, noted the areas shaded in green
on the plan which he explained is a slope bank necessitated by terrain and
separates the mobile home park from the residential area. The average height of
this slope is 40'; the mobilehome park will be on the higher terrain. They have
no objection to having a pedestrian access on the northern end of the park, so
that children and adults can use it going to the schools and shopping center.
As to the emergency access, they have no objection, but would suggest it be
limited to emergency use and have a gate on it. In most of the mobile home parks,
one access is advocated because of security reasons. Mr. Kelton stated that he
presented this plan to the Homeowners Association of the College Estates and they
voiced no objection. He then explained that the proposed R-3 area was not included
in the plan because of the steep slope, and as part of the park would require a
great amount of cut and fill. Mr. Kelton asked that approval of Unit #6 not be
held up pending approval of the internal design of the mobile home park.
He explained that the sewer facilities must be put in from Otay Lakes Road thus
necessitating the need to develop Unit 6 before Unit 5.
Mr. Browning Marean, representing United Enterprises, owners of the land to the
east and south of the proposed mobile home park, discussed the request referring
to the revised General Plan which delineates that area as medium density - 4 to 12
units per gross acre. While this proposed density is high, the topography features
are such that placing 208 units on the property would result in quite a scattering.
The elevation from the street ranges from 450' to 610' which makes it almost
impossible to screen a mobile home park because of the height. Mr. Marean then spoke
of the Sweetwater Lodge trailer park (Spring Valley) which was developed by the
same applicants. He stated this same park suffers from the same lack of imagination
as the proposed park does. One condition that they are particularly asking for,
in case of approval, is that the park be made as aesthetically pleasing as possible,
and this means that a great deal of planting would have to be put in.
9
Mr. Stewart Taylor, 568 Yale Street, stated he is not opposed to the proposed
request.
Mr. Carmen Pasquale, representing Otay Land Company, stated they have no real
objection to a mobilehome park in that area. He agreed with the staff in that
it does lack imagination and needs a lot of work. There is a topography problem
and if approved, quite a bit of real landscaping would have to be put in. They
would like to see something more refined then what has been proposed. Mr. Pasquale
added that if they can do something constructive and it has no detrimental e£fect
on the Master Plan of the Otay Land Company, then they have no objection.
Mr. Kelton declared that they have a somewhat different situation here--they will
be actually selling homes irmnediately adjacent to this proposed mobile home park.
They agree with all the recommendations of the staff with the following exceptions:
(1) they do not wish to include the proposed R-3 area into the park plan, and (2)
that approval on Unit #6 not be held up pending this mobile home plan approval.
Director Warren cautioned the Commission about leaving the proposed R-3 lot out
of the park plan. He commented that if the developer does not wish to include it
in his plan, then the Planning Commission should know exactly what the developer
is going to use it for. Whatever happens on the m~bile home park will require a great
deal of grading. If the Commission approves this request, they should be assured
that there will be sufficient landscaping, irrigation, etc.
Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, discussed the proposed street going
into Acacia which he said was one that they approved. The developers were asked
to redesign their subdivision, which they did, to accommodate this street align-
ment. This particular design was made in order to eliminate the number of street
intersections going into Acacia Avenue. As to using this street from the mobile
home park for access to Acacia, he can only say that, generally, mobile home
parks are different in that they prefer to have just one access in and out of their
park. There may be some merit in having an access to the north or to the west,
and if this were the case, hQ would suggest two 12' lanes with a sidewalk on one
side. If this were strictly an R-1 development, Mr. Gesley stated he would be
insisting on another access.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
Chairman Rice commented on the proposal indicating he had mixed emotions on it.
There is a need for that type of facility, but it should be landscaped and
screened. He would also like to see some plans of development to be assured
that what is being planned for that area is feasible--he is not entirely sold on
having it developed as a mobile home park and feels it could be developed as a
single-family development with perhaps view lots.
The Commission discussed the problems associated with having the one access to the
Park.
Member Adams declared that he favored the proposal for the mobile home park and
can see no problem with screening, since the Planning Department will be approving
the landscaping plan.
The Commission concurred adding that sufficient landscaping must be provided and
the 4 1/2 acre site at the southerly portion of the property (Unit #8) should be
incorporated into the plan.
10
Director Warren suggested a condition be incorporated whereby one lot of Unit #6
be reserved for access into this area, if necessary.
Mr. Kelton stated he agrees with this condition.
MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) Approval of the conditional use permit subject to the
following conditions:
1. The R-3 area known as Unit #8 of Southwestern College Estates shall be
incorporated into the park design.
2. A plan for the combined 30 acre site shall be submitted for Planning Commission
approval. Such plan shall include, but not be limited to:
a. A preliminary landscaping plan with special consideration given to the area
facing Otay Lakes Road shall be required to the extent that all screening possible
be made, as necessary.
b. At least one recreation center, centrally located, meeting the ordinance
requirements.
c. A fence layout, including design, for the entire site.
d. A site plan shall be developed with special attention given to the topography
in creating an aesthetically pleasing park as well as functionable park which will
afford each resident a maximum of privacy.
e. Radio and television antennas shall not be allowed on the exterior of any
unit or service building. A central radio and T.V. antenna shall be provided with
underground wiring to each pad as required.
f. Roadways shall establish a minimum width of 24' without parking and 32' with
parking one side only, or 40' with parking on both sides.
g. Driveway lighting plan, including light standards at sufficient intervals,
which will insure adequate lighting for the residents.
h. Because of the isolated location, a minimum of two parking spaces per unit
shall be provided at each pad.
i. An emergency vehicular access shall be made to this development, subject to Planning
staff approval and Engineering standards.
j. If necessary, a lot in Unit No. 6 shall be reserved for access into this area.
Findings be as follows:
1. That this proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable
to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well-being
of the neighborhood or the community.
There is a demand for this type of housing. The college, together with
parks, elementary schools, and shopping facilities are in the immediate
vicinity.
11
2. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety~ or general welfare of persons residing or
working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity.
The area will be physically separated from adjoining uses.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions
specified in the Code for such use.
The use will comply with all required conditions.
4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect
the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista or the adopted plan of any governmental
agency.
The General Plan is not affected.
SUBDIVISION - Southwestern College Estates~ Unit~ ~-6-7-8
Director of Planning Warren submitted the tentative map which incorporates 72
acres of property located on the north side of Otay Lakes Road, one-half mile east
of Southwestern College. The subdivision is divided into 4 units: #5 has 74 R-1
lots; #6 - 68 R-1 lots; #7 - t lot which is designated for the 208 unit mobile
home park; and #8 is a ~ ~ acre lot proposed for R-3 development.
The General Plan designates the area to the west for high density, and the staff
finds no justification to carry high density residential further east, and recom-
mends that Unit #8 be incorporated into Unit 7 as a part of the proposed mobile
home park. Mr. Warren then discussed the collector road which is proposed to
be connected to Acacia Avenue. The County contends that this parallel system
is needed, especially during peak traffic hours, to alleviate the congestion at
the college. Another street, H Street, by this same developer, has housing
fronting on that street which was approved with the condition that a "T" type
driveway be provided in order to avoid backing vehicles into the street. The
applicants object to this type of driveway indicating it would place too much
concrete in the front yard. The staff, however, feels it is required to provide
a safe turn around and would in no way distract from the normal landscaping applied
to these lots. F.H.A. would also prefer this type of driveway. Director Warren
discussed the numerous slopes which would be created - in excess of 15' in vertical
height - because of th topography in this area. Because of this, the City has been
requiring additional planting to compliment the ice plant required by both the
City and FHA standards when slopes exceed this 15' in height. The staff is
recommending the same condition in this case. Mr. Warren further added that the
staff is recommending a pedestrian access easement toward the northwest corner
of the park, to afford pedestrians the opportunity of an access to the schools and
shopping center instead of having to proceed to Otay Lakes Road. He then reviewed
the other added conditions stating that the staff recommends approval based on
the conditions as outlined.
Mr. Richard Kelton~ the developer, referred to the condition of a sprinkler
system on the banks. He said he had no objection to it but would ask the
Commission to state that the requirement meet FHA standards.
12
Director Warren declared that they have run into this request in the past only
to discover that the FHA requirements were not satisfactory.
Mr. Kelton stated another point was the "T" driveways. He spoke of the proposed
width of the street; the traffic that will be generated on it; the fact that
it was the County that initiated the concept of this street and not the City,
and that the County made no requirement for the "T"-driveways. M~r. Kelton
asked to be relieved of this condition as it creates a lot of problems in terms
of design, less landscaping around the homes, and that the garages cannot be
designed with straight-in drives.
The Commission discussed the need of the "T"-driveways. Mr. Gesley, AssiStant
City Engineer, stated the road will have a 6% grade which is a fairly steep
grade, and ~t would be dangerous to back out onto it, even with a moderate amount
of traffic.
Member Hillson expressed his opposition to the T-driveway.
Member Adams felt it was more of an engineering and safety problem and the Com-
mission should go along with the staff's recommendations.
MSUC (Adams-James) Approval of tentative map of Southwestern College Estates,
Units 5-6-7-8 subject to the following conditions:
1. As stipulated under the conditions of the conditional use permit for the approval
of the mobile home park, Unit No. 8 shall be incorporated into Unit No. 7.
2. One lot on the east side of the proposed Acacia Avenue in Unit No. 6 shall be
reserved for street access to that area to the east (Unit 7).
3. A preliminary landscaping plan shall be submitted to the staff prior to the
submission of the final map for any unit. Said plan shall encompass all of the
slopes using the following criteria for planting:
a. Slopes 3' or less shall utilize fine leaf ice plant, such as
mesembrianthemum croceum or rosea.
b. Slopes 3' to 15' (vertical height) shall have the top 6' strip
planted in a fine leaf ice plant such as mesembrianthemum croceum or
rosea, the balance to be planted with carpobrotus edulis. Substitutions
will be considered by the staff.
c. On all slopes greater than 15', add to item b, one shrub or tree
per 150 sq. ft., 1 gallon size minimum, to be selected by a landscape
~rchitect for deep rooting qualities as well as aesthetic values.
d. Special attention shall be given to the area adjacent to Otay Lakes
Road with specimem trees required for the Acacia Street entrance and the
access to the trailer park.
13
e. Ail slopes exceeding 15' in height shall be watered by a sprinkler
system (plans to be submitted with landscaping plan).
f. It shall be the responsibility of the subdivider to maintain all the
slopes until individual owners take over, or for a period of not less than
90 days. Such maintenance period to begin upon staff approval of completed
planting.
4. A final landscaping plan shall be submitted and approved prior to the
recordation of the final map.
5. Ail houses using Acacia Avenue for access shall employ "T" type driveways
approved by the Planning Department.
6. A pedestrian access~ constructed to Engineering specifications, shall be
provided between the subdivision and the trailer park (near Lot 583). Fencing
of said walkway to be approved jointly by the City Engineering and Planning
Departments, with special attention given to the aesthetic design of said fence.
7. The easterly half of Acacia Avenue shall be extended northerly from Lot 583
approximately 200 feet; full improvements including drainage structures shall be
constructed therein and the subdivision boundary revised.
8. Twenty-eight feet of pavement shall be constructed in Acacia Avenue from
Ithaca Street north to the subdivision boundary and in Otay Lakes Road.
Vacation of Shasta Street and plot plan for S. D. Trust & Savin~s Bank
Director of Planning Warren submitted a location map noting the property in question,
the proposed vacation of street right-of-way, the adjacent land use and zoning.
He commented that this was not a public hea~ing; however, notices were sent out to
the residents in this immediate area. The R-1 zoned lot directly south of the
proposed vacation is to be used for the expansion of the San Diego Trust & Savings
parking lot which the Commission approved subject to the vacation of this portion
of the street. A meeting of the residents in this area was called by the staff
and the traffic problems were discussed. These traffic problems will be
increased by a minor degree when the San Diego Gas & Electric Company office goes
in. The street serves no purpose and the staff recommends the ~acation.
Director Warren then discussed the modification plans of the bank in which they
will be putting in more drive-in windows. He then submitted three alternative
traffic patterns for Fig and Shasta Streets and explained each in detail. The
staff reconm~ends "Exhibit A" which permits one-way traffic north from Fig and
would permit unchanged use of Fig north of Shasta and Shasta itself.
At this point, Mr. Warren explained, it has not been determined whose obligation
it will be to put in these improvements~ but that is not the issue before the
Commission - the basic question is the need and use of the westerly portion of
Shasta Street for street purposes. The actual obligation will be resolved by the
City Council.
Mr. Victor Wulff, architect retained by the San Diego Trust & Savings Bank for
their "motor banking" facilities, explained the format and the ingress-egress
plans. Entrances will be from H Street and exit onto Fig. He added
14
that this portion of Shasta serves no one except the bank.
City Attorney Lindberg explained it was the function of the Council to deter-
mine whether or not the street should be closed. The Commission has the
obligation to make recommendations concerning the present and future need for
the street for public right-of-way. The same issues raised here will be raised
at Council level.
Mr. Will Babic, 565 Fig Avenue, asked to be notified of the Council hearng.
MAr. Charles McKenna, 537 Guava Avenue, spoke against two of the street patterns
urging the Commission to accept the street pattern that delineated Fig and
Guava Streets as ending in cul-de-sacs south of Shasta.
M~. Dale Bunch, Manager of the local bank of San Diego Trust & Savings, explained
the modification of the bank facilities as an effort to speed up the service
in order to alleviate the traffic congestion occurring on H Street, at peak
banking hours. At present, they do not permit their staff to park in the bank
parking lot--they must park in the Sears parking lot or along the residential
streets - Fig and Shasta. If this development is permitted, they will have room
for staff parking.
Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, explained the procedure for a street
vacation with the applicant paying the cost needed street improvement modifica-
tions.
The Commission discussed the alternate street patterns and concurred with the
one the staff recommended - Exhibit "A".
MSUC (Adams-James) Recommend to the City Council that the stub end of Shasta
Street be vacated.
MSUC (Stewart-Chandler) Recommend to City Council their consideration of
Exhibit "A" as the traffic pattern to adopt for this area.
"E" Street Zoning Study
Director of Planning Warren referred to the reports sent to the Commission. This
study was initiated at the direction of the City Council as the result of an
appeal by Castle-Plymouth regarding rezoning from R-3 to C-T on Third Avenue north
of E Street. The Council was concerned about the potential split of commercial
zoning along this street (E Street).
Director Warren reviewed the different alternatives recom~ended in the report.
He stated that the staff recommends that the study area be zoned C-T with the
adoption of a policy that expansion of the C-T zone both to the north and south
is recognized as necessary and desirable under certain conditions and that
such rezoning will be considered on individual basis upon approval of a Precise
Plan. He explained that E Street is a major thoroughfare and does not have the
pedestrian oriented shopping center atmosphere that Third Avenue or a shopping
center possess.
15
M~ber Adams asked for a workshop meeting in order to discuss the report in
detail.'
Diractor Warren indicated it would probably have to be set for June 8, and
the Council requested to delay their action on the rezoning matter.
Mr. Milton Vest, 174 Landis Avenue, felt the report was a "package deal" -
that nowhere in the report is there a provision for any business establishment expansion
along this street except that for Castle Plymouth.
Director of Planning Warren explained to Mr. Vest the concept of the report,
and the matter of the Castle-Plymouth rezoning is a matter entirely separate
from this report. The report does not rezone any property, and if the Com-
mission so directs, the staff will redraw the line showing the expansion of the
Castle Plymouth business. The Commission agreed.
The Commission was polled for their decision on the workshop, and the majority
of them favored a dinner workshop meeting.
MSUC (Adams-Chandler) A dinner workshop meeting be held on June 8, ·970, to
discuss the E Street Report. The City Council be requested to continue their
action on the Castle-Plymouth rezoning request.
Mr. John Keeley, 4661 Talmadge Drive, stated that he owns the property bordering
the Castle-Plymouth business and asked if he would be able to attend the work-
shop meeting.
City Attorney Lindberg explained that the workshops are informal meetings held
by the Commission. Ail meetings are open to the public and anyone wishing to
attend may do so; however, they must be observers and cannot participate in
the discussions~ as such.
Director Warren remarked that it would be his recommendation that the Commission
hold a public hearing on the matter after the workshop session.
Mr. Gus Pappas, attorney for Castle Plymouth, questioned the time limitation
on their request.
Mr. Warren indicated it would be placed on the Council agenda of May 26 at which
time he will give a status report on it.
Request for extension of time on variance - 99 Broadway - Avon Jennin~s
Director of Planning Warren referred to the staff's comments in which they recom-
mended a one-year extension of time on this variance. The original variance was
granted on May 26, 1969 for a reduction of rear yard setback from 15 feet to · foot
to provide for the expansion of the motel. In making the recommendation, the staff
feels that three years is sufficient time to utilize a variance and further
recommends that no further extension be granted.
The Commission agreed with this recommendation.
MSUC (James-Chandler) Approval of one year extension of time with the condition
that no further extensions be granted.
16
Use Variances
City Attorney Lindberg reported that an amendment to the State Planning Act
is being introduced in the State Legislature to prohibit Use Variances
statewide in California. He is pleased that what is already the law in
Chula Vista is now being recognized for the whole State.
League of California Cities Annual Conference Resolutions
Director Warren noted a letter received from the League asking Commissions to
submit topics suitable for resolutions for the annual conference which will
take place this Fall in San Diego.
Chairman Rice suggested the topic of the Local Agency Formation CoImmission.
Director Warren indicated the Council should perhaps submit their comments on
this subject.
ADJOURNMENT
MSUC (Macevicz-Hillson) Meeting be adjourned to the meeting of May 25, 1970.
The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
,/y Jennie M. Fulasz
~ Secretary