Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1976/08/23 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF - CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA August 23, 1976 A regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California was held on the above date beginning at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: Chandler, Smith, Starr, Floto, Pressutti, R. Johnson and G. Johnson. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Current Planning Supervisor Lee, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Assistant Director of Public Works Lippitt, Assistant City Attorney Beam and Secretary Mapes. The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Chandler followed by a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Floto-Smith) The minutes of the meeting of August 9, 1976 be approved as written. Co~issioner R. Johnson abstained due to his absence from that meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATION Scott Sims, proponent of the development of Lot 3 of the Otay Industrial Park, advised that it was his understanding that their precise plan was to be reviewed again this evening, but it does not appear on the agenda. He asked for clarification. Director of Planning Peterson advised that the Precise Plan referred to will be considered by the City Council on the following night (August 24). 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-76-12 - Request to expand church facility at 301 East Palomar - Palomar Church of Christ Current Planning Supervisor Lee reported that the existing church facility was constructed about 15 years ago with a seating capacity for about 270 persons, and classroom space for 160. This request is for approval of expansion plans in two phases. The first phase would consist of a one story classroom building wi th seating capacity for 120; the second phase would be a two story addition to the existing building to provide additional classroom for 235 on the lower floor and increase the seating capacity of the sanctuary on the second level to 598. The present seating capacity requires 54 offstreet parking spaces. When the total expansion program has been completed a total of 149 spaces will be required. The plan shows lll parking spaces onsite and the applicant advises that an agreement has been made with the elementary school across the street for the use of 50 parking spaces on their lot as required by church attendance. The applicant has indicated that the classroom facilities will be used only on Sunday and on Wednesday evening, with the exception of an occasional meeting. This limitation of usage has been included in the list of 6 conditions recommeded for adoption in the approval of this request. -2- August 23, 1976 Mr. Lee noted that a draft Negative Declaration has been issued for this project and asked that the Commission certify and adopt that Negative Declaration, and approve the application for expansion of facilities subject to the conditions as enumerated. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Ahmet Kaya, engineer for the project, advised that the applicant agrees to the conditions as recommended. In response to a question from Commissioner Starr, Mr. Kaya advised that at the present time the church has no plans for use of the facilities other than Sunday and Wednesday evening. Commissioner Starr felt the conditions should not be so rigid as to state a particular evening, but that usage be limited to Sunday and one evening during the week. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Starr-R. Johnson) The Commission finds that in accordance with the findings stated in the Negative Declaration on IS-76-51, this project will not have any significant adverse environmental impact, and certifies that the Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with CEQA, 1970, as amended. MSUC (Starr-R. Johnson) Conditional use permit PCC-76-12 for expansion of church facilities for the Church of Christ at 301 East Palomar is approved based on the findings stated in the staff report and subject to the conditions as enumerated in the report with the modification of condition "f" to limit the use of the classrooms to Sunday mornings and one other evening during the week, with any increase in the use subject to Planning Commission approval. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Precise Plan PCM-76-17 for dental office buildin~ at the southwest corner of Hale Street and Halecrest in the C-O-P zone - Max Greer Director of Planning Peterson noted the location of the proposed 2100 sq. ft. dental office building on the lot at the corner of Hale Street and Halecrest Drive, pointing out that the lot elevation is from 5 ft. to 13 ft. above Halecrest, ranges from 5 ft. above to level with Hale Street and is 5 ft. lower than the adjacent single family residence to the west. The site is considerably above the service station to the south. As indicated on the plot plan the proposed access to the property is from Hale Street toward the westerly edge of the site which is the only reasonable access due to the topographic character of the lot and adjacent streets. Mr. Peterson advised that the low profile building of contemporary Spanish design is compatible with adjacent residential uses. He acknowledged receipt of a petition signed by 53 residents of the area expressing two main concerns: That access to the property should be from Halecrest Drive rather than Hale Street and that the parking lot should be situated on the eastern edge of the lot, where full sight of the parking area would tend to curtail questionable activities on the property. He expressed the opinion that the elevation of the street and of the existing pad make such access completely impractical, if not impossible. The City Engineering Division concurs that the proposed access is much safer. -3- August 23, 1976 At Commissioner Floto's request, Mr. Peterson read the petition. Commission Pressutti asked about the feasibility of leaving the access as indicated from Hale Street, but moving the parking area to the easterly edge of the property. Mr. Peterson advised that such a change in the plan would require that a larger part of the site be devoted to paved driveway and parking area for very little purpose. He felt it is better to devote the area to landscaping. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Ralph Arnold, Taylor Wheeler Planning Corporation, Fresno, reported that his finn specializes throughout the State of California in the development of medical and dental facilities. It is their opinion that the plan as submitted is the only means of accommodating a building of the size desired on the subject property and comply with the parking requirements. He concurred that access could not be taken from Halecrest Drive due to the topography. He also felt that any change in the location of the parking spaces would be detrimental to the plan. Mr. Arnold confirmed that Dr. Greer's practice is limited to pedodontics and that he will be the only dentist at this facility. Joe Walker, 875 Floyd Avenue reported that he is speaking on behalf of several residents in the immediate vicinity who participated in the preparation and circulation of the petition read by Mr. Peterson. He expressed concern that over- flow parking would utilize Hale Street which is narrower than Halecrest Drive and cannot accommodate parking as easily. He also felt the parking area should be visible from the streets as youths might tend to congregate in the parking lot if it were out of sight. Commissioner Floto reported that in driving down Halecrest he sometimes sees a number of cars parked on Halecrest in the vicinity of this property. He questioned the reason for such parking when the property is vacant. Mr. Walker expressed the belief that those cars belong to members of a carpool who reside in the tract. Mrs. Wilson advised that she lives adjacent to the proposed development and felt concern about having the parking located so close to their residence since they have had trouble with children in the area, including having a window shot with a beebee gun. She asked if the parking lot could be closed at night so that youth would not have access to the area. She also asked what sort of security is planned for the parking lot and office. Carl Pesaro, new owner of the residence directly across the street from the site of the proposed office expressed concern with having the driveway on Hale due to the speed of the traffic coming down that street. Mr. Wilson, 590 Hale Street, indicated that he is not opposed to the dental office but is concerned with having the parking lot near their residence and emphasized the need for security measures. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. -4- August 23, 1976 Commissioner Starr spoke in support of the plan as presented, indicating that any change in location of the building, parking area or access drive would be detrimental. He pointed out that a number of dental offices on F Street are adjacent to residences and that the buildings are lighted all the way around. MSUC (Floto-R. Johnson) The Commission finds that in accordance with the findings stated in the Negative Declaration on IS-76-49, this project will have no significant adverse environmental impacts and certifies the Negative Declaration. Commissioner Starr suggested that in order to allay some fear, another condition be added to those recommended in the staff report, to require closing the driveway to prevent vehicles from being driven on to the parking lot during off office hours. He also asked what lighting is proposed for the site. Mr. Arnold advised that they would like to have night lighting from the soffits all the way around the building. MSUC (Floto-Pressutti) The Commission recommends to the City Council the approval of the Precise Plan for construction of a dental office building at the southwest corner of Hale Street and Halecrest Drive based on the findings as stated in the staff report and subject to the 7 conditions enumerated in the report and additional conditions to allow for closure of the parking lot to vehicular traffic after business hours and for security lighting which would be compatible with the area. Chairman Chandler noted that this request for approval would be the subject of a public hearing before the City Council in the near future. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Environmental Impact Report EIR-76-5 for Brentwood Arms Apartments Environmental Review Coordinator Reid reported that the subject environmental impact report covers a 106 unit apartment complex on Edgemere Avenue containing a mix of one and two bedroom units. Implementation of the project will require about 14,000 cubic yards of grading. The proponent has proposed 1½:1 slopes and various retaining walls to accommodate the structures and the parking areas. The grading will result in a substantial land form change. Mr. Reid noted there is an inferred earthquake fault in the area but that geological reconnaisance of the site revealed no surface indication of the fault; a geologist will be present during the grading of the site to assure that there is no subsur- face evidence of that fault. As stated in the report, schools in the area are currently overcrowded, but the school districts have indicated that a project of this magnitude will not significantly cause problems for them in providing educational services. Mr. Reid advised that the only input received to date is from the Environmental Control Commission which has recommended certification of the report. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Dean Dunphy, President of Dunphy Construction Company and developer of the industrial park directly to the west of this site, raised a question concerning provision for handling the runoff water from the site of the project. He pointed out it is indicated that the water will drain to the northwest corner of the site following the natural topography ofthe area, but no provision is made for -5- August 23, 1976 handling the water beyond that point. He also pointed out that the proposed project abuts his industrial lots and he hoped the development could be accomplished in a manner to assure compatibity between the two uses. Walter Schwerin of the firm of Schwerin, Xinos and Associates, consultant for the V & V Development Company, advised that the drainage water which is brought to the northwest corner of their site will be dissipated at three or four locations to spread out the impact of the drainage. He felt this would not involve a large quantity of water and would pose no problems to adjacent property. Mr. Schwerin expressed the opinion that this R-3 development is a suitable buffer between the single family neighborhood and the industrial uses in the valley. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, felt the E.I.R. had not sufficiently addressed the problem of the effect of the proposed development on the schools, which are already overcrowded. He also disagreed with the determination that the project would have no growth inducing impact, since the development of apartments will tend to make the single family areas less desirable and pressure will increase for additional changes to R-2 or R-3 zoning. He pointed out there is no section on social economic factors which are usually contained in EIR's. He contended that the project will have a very significant impact on the sociology of the area, also on the traffic patterns and the creation of land uses different from those on adjacent property. George Ronis, 171 North Del Mar Avenue, also stressed the impact on the already overcrowded schools, particularly in the elementary grades, as well as the lack of neighborhood parks in the vicinity. He suggested that some requirement should be made for maintaining the units in other than a blighted condition with respect to landscaping and so forth. Newton Chaney, 292 Seavale Street, stressed the fact that this development will result in traffic congestion on residential streets which were not designed to handle a large volume of traffic. He also reiterated the need for parks in the neighborhood. Ed Conklin, 207 Bayview Way, complained of the noise generated by the trucking industry located in the industrial park, particularly late at night, and suggested that it would be even more disruptive to residents of the proposed apartments. Ted Bell, 70 Vallecito Way, operator of the campgrounds known as KOA located on the east side of Edgemere, argued that a residential development should not be sandwiched in between commercial and industrial uses. He also felt that additional children in a relatively enclosed area would magnify the problems which already exist with regard to vandalism and burglaries. He pointed to the lack of sidewalks and difficult topography for for pedestrian travel. Tony Usquiana, 10 North Second Avenue, corroborated the testimony of his neighbors with regard to noise from the industrial uses and the lack of sidewalks. Mr. Schwerin advised that the applicant has authorized a statement that he would record a deed which would restrict schoolage children from living in the apartments, thus alleviating many of the concerns expressed. He also pointed out that the park fees required from the applicant are $30,000 which should help the park situation. He further advised that to keep trespassing to a minimum, and as required by the zoning ordinance, a 6 ft. chainlink fence would be installed around the property. -6- August 23, 1976 Carol Smith, 275 Seavale Street, advised that similar statements were made when the apartments on "C" Street were approved. It was indicated that they would be luxurious apartments and have no children; but as those apartments have had five different owners, different policies have prevailed. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. The Commission concluded that due to the amount of input received, the final E.I.R. should be considered at a subsequent meeting. Due to the already heavy agenda for the meeting of September 13, it was recommended that this matter be scheduled for September 27th. The applicant expressed agreement with that date. Assistant City Attorney Beam advised the applicant that the Planning Commission cannot move forward to consider a project until the E.I.R. is approved, and the E.I.R. cannot be approved until all input received in public hearing has been considered. MSUC (Floto-Pressutti) Consideration of the final E.I.R. for Brentwood Arms apartments be scheduled for the meeting of September 27, 1976, as well as the public hearing to consider the conditional use permit application for construction of the apartment complex in the flood plain area. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-76-7 - Request to construct apartment complex in the flood plain at the end of Ed~emere Avenue - V & V Development Company - In accordance with the action taken in the preceding motion this public hearing will be placed on the agenda for the Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 1976. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance PCV-76-15 - Request for reduction of rear yard setback from 15' to 5' at 319 Fifth Avenue - Martha Feuling Current Planning Supervisor Lee noted the location of the property at the northwest corner of Center Street and Fifth Avenue; the lot measures 70 ft. by 110 ft. and is developed with two single family detached units and a one car garage. The access drive is from Fifth Avenue, and runs the length of the lot to the garage near the rear of the lot. The applicant proposes to connect the existing garage and the dwelling unit facing Center Street by adding a room between the two structures. This connection would normally require that a 15 ft. setback be maintained. Mr Lee noted that the addition could be accomplished by locating it on the west side of the existing dwelling, but due to the floor plan such addition would not be desirable, and the addition as proposed makes more sense. It is recommended that the request be approved subject to the requirement of the paving of an offstreet parking space which is presently a dirt surface with access from a curb cut on Center Street between the two dwelling units. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. -7- Augst 23, 1976 Sylvia Carroll, 491 Center Street, asserted that if the addition is constructed as requested, the distance between that structure and her residence will be reduced to 7'8", which she contended would no longer permit ventilation for her home, and would thus be detrimental to her health and well being. She asked what the fire regulation is with regard to the distance between homes. It was acknowledged that the requirement is 10 feet. Commissioner Gayle Johnson asked if permission was granted for the conversion of a former garage into the existing studio apartment. Mrs. Carroll reported that they gave permission for the conversion to a studio apartment with the understanding that it would be occupied by only one person. She felt that with the added room the apartment might be occupied by a couple or by someone with children. George Harnetty, engineer for the applicant, pointed out that the addition would only encompass an 11 foot distance between two existing structures. He felt this would not cut off the air from the adjacent residence or injure the resident. He expressed concurrence with the condition as recommended by the staff. Commissioner G. Johnson commented that in visiting the site it appeared that the walls are being worked on. Mr. Harnetty advised that due to termite damage on the building it had been necessary to replace several pieces of wood in the wall. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Pressutti expressed the opinion that in considering a request of this nature, careful attention should be paid to the finding of a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by the owner. If that finding cannot be made the variance cannot be approved. He further expressed the feeling that garage conversion and then making additions is not a desirable method of creating an apartment complex. MSUC (Pressutti-Smith) Variance application PCV-76-15 be denied based upon the failure to satisfy the finding of a hardship not created by the owner, as required by the zoning ordinance. The Chairman advised the applicant of the right of appeal to the City Council within ten days. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Environmental Impact Report EIR-76-7 for Rancho Robinhood III Environmental Review Coordinator Reid described the project which will consist of 110 dwelling units on 100 acres located just west of Otay Lakes Road in the Bonita area. Seventy-two lots will be designed for tract construction to FHA standards and 38 lots built individually with custom homes. The development will include a network of equestrian trails, hiking paths and a bike route along Otay Lakes Road. In addition to the approximately 59 acres which will be graded for homes, the project includes 41 acres to be left in the natural state. -8- August 23, 1976 The La Nacion earthquake fault runs through the site and the project has been designed to provide a 10 foot setback on either side of that zone. The area is also subject to landsliding and the grading as proposed does encroach into that unstable area; however, the grading generally consists of cuts at the upper portion of the landslides and fill at the toe of the landslide to help stabilize the unstable area. Design criteria to attenuate the problem of noise from Otay Lakes Road has been incorporated into the project. It is noted there is a stand of San Diego snake chollas covering about 5.3 acres in the western portion of the project and the proponent has proposed to modify his grading in that area to utilize 1.5:1 slopes, thereby permitting the retention of most of that stand. An archeological survey of the area revealed two minor archeology sites and impact on these sites can be mitigated through field work and filing of appropriate reports. Mr. Reid called attention to the outline of revisions to be included in the final E.I.R. and to the input which has been received. He recommended that following the input received in public hearing at this meeting, consideration of the final £.I.R. be scheduled for September 13. Chairman Chandler opened the public hearing for consideration of the environmental impact report. Sam Safino, project engineer for the developer, expressed his readiness to provide any additional information desired by the Commission. Frank Kingery, Westec Services, described the method of stabilizing the landslide area by removing soil from the upper portion of the area and placing fill at the toe of the slide. Mrs. William A. Spies, Jr., Bonita resident representing the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association, spoke on the drainage problems in the area below the project site, which have been intensified by development in the past few years of Rancho Robinhood I and II. She asked that extensive analysis of this problem and constant sur- veillance during grading operations be assured. Jack Dunham, 303 Surrey Drive, corroborated the statements made by Mrs. Spies with regard to the washout of portions of lots due to excessive runoff water. He contended that additional development would amplify the problem. He also expressed concern over inadequate water pressure to properly serve lots at the higher elevations. He felt that additional development would be an impact on present residents in the valley of their enjo~ent of the scenic value of the project site. Rudolph Radeke, 969 Bucharoo Lane in Rancho Robinhood, contended that the E.I.R. did not adequately address the effect on the human environment external to the 100 acres involved here, including such factors as scenic environment, traffic and associated hazards, impact on school children and present residents of Rancho Robinhood, in addition to erosion and drainage as discussed by other speakers. He spoke at some length on each of those factors. -9- August 23, 1976 George Gillow, 250 Camino del Cerro Grande, chairman of the Environmental Control Commission, briefly restated the Commission's opinion. They felt that leaving the area as open space would be environmentally the best; however, of all the choices of development that could occur, the proposed project is best suited for the area. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Starr-Pressutti) Consideration of the final EIR-76-7 for Rancho Robinhood III, including the input presented at tonight's meeting and response thereto, be scheduled for the meeting of September 13, 1976. 7. Consideration of E1 Rancho del ReS Unit #5 Annexation Director of Planning Peterson reported that this annexation relates to the tentative map for E1 Rancho del Rey Unit No. 5, which is the next item on the agenda. As customary in the past, the applicant has proposed annexation boundaries coterminus with the subdivision map; in this case it is the staff's recommendation that the area to be annexed be expanded beyond the boundaries of the immediately proposed tentative map to the nearest section line. He pointed out that if the annexation were approved with the same boundaries as the tentative map there would be some grading that would occur in the unincorporated area, which tends to create coordination problems between the City and the County in the issuance of grading permits. Mr. Peterson discussed the plat showing the annexation as proposed by the applicant and the extended area recommended by the staff to coincide with the boundaries of Section 69. Chairman Chandler asked for the comment of the owner with regard to the extension of the annexation boundaries. Mr. Carmen Pasquale, representing E1 Rancho del Rey and Otay Land Company, indicated he had not had an opportunity to review what the impact of the extended annexation would be and asked that the item be continued to the next meeting in order for him to properly respond. MSUC (Chandler-Floto) Consideration of the boundaries of E1 Rancho del Rey Unit 5 Annexation be continued to the meeting of September 13, 1976. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of tentative subdivision map PCS-76-7 - E1 Rancho del ReS Unit #5 Although action cannot be taken on this subdivision map prior to a decision on the annexation of the property, Current Planning Supervisor Lee advised that the staff has two very primary concerns relating to the deYelopment on which they wish to receive Commission comment and direction. He pointed out that the P-C zone, which includes this property, requires that an overall General Development Pl,~n be adopted by the City. The map of the adopted plan indicates the type of land use and the text of the plan spells out the sequence of development including the major public improvements to be installed (this relates to schools, streets, parks, and sewers). The E1 Rancho del Rey General Development, adopted in 1971, is now considered inadequate and unrealistic with regard to the densities shown; also, the -10- August 23, 1976 plan reflects little or no environmental considerations. Mr. Lee reported that in June of this year the Council asked the staff to work with the owners of the property to revise the General Development Plan and this process is now underway. The staff feels it is crucial to define or establish areas for preservation prior to considering precise plans for development of isolated portions of the overall area. The second concern relates to formation of an assessment district for offsite public improvements. Such a district would provide the mechanism to equitably spread the cost of the major improvementsrequired for the area. The estimated time required for establishment of such a district is one to two years. A Council Conference, scheduled for September 2nd, will further consider this matter. Mr. Lee advised that at this time the staff solicits Commission comment on this particular subdivision. He displayed a map of the subdivision depicting the individual lots, manufactured slopes, and natural slopes to be retained. He pointed out that the realignment of Telegraph Canyon Road, including the drainage system, encroaches into this subdivision site. The large natural open space shown on the map is an extension of the canyon area retained as open space in the South Bay Villas subdivision. Mr. Lee pointed out that the average natural slope in the area is about 18% and the grading as proposed will leave about a third of the area in open space, a portion of which would be graded open space. Application of the Hillside ordinance to this area would require that 38% of the property remain in ungraded state. The adjacent property to the north is zoned in that manner, to R-1-H. The average lot size in the proposed development is about 8800 sq. ft. The difference in elevation from the canyon floor to the top of the ridge ranges up to 100 feet in the area of this project. The proposed boundaries of this subdivision excludes some hard to develope adjacent areas. Mr. Lee indicated it is not necessary to include those areas in this subdivision, but they should be addressed in the annexation and the overall plan for development. Mr. Lee pointed out that the importance of an overall plan is evidenced by looking at the circulation system since it must be determined whether various streets should be stubbed at the boundaries of the subdivision or terminated in a cul de sac within the development. It is also necessary to determine the appropriate location for various school facilities to accommodate future development. Concern has been expressed relative to the need of a 50 acre high school site in this vicinity. Mr. Lee also noted the new alignment of East "J" Street which is different than that shown on the adopted General Development Plan and may have some bearing on the most appropriate location for an elementary school, and which should be deter- mined prior to approval of development plans. It is also necessary to determine what the density of the overall area will be to reach a decision on the necessity of having another elementary school. As indicated in the staff report, there is a need to address the Housing Element in considering a development of this size. Under that element some consideration should be given to providing a variety of housing types, rather than exclusively single family detached homes. He specifically pointed out one area in the project which it is felt cQuld logically be devoted to another housing type. Mr. Lee called attention to the street named Paseo Del Rey which goes through this development, connecting East J Street and Telegraph Canyon Road. With future -Il- August 23, 1976 development of the area, the traffic count is projected to be lO,O00 cars per day. For that reason the developer has tried to minimize the number of lots that front on that street, and have accomplished this to a degree; however, 28 lots are still proposed to front on that street. The developer has consented to employ some mitigating measures, such as deeper lots and the provision of "T" type driveways to eliminate the need for backing from the driveway into the street; also, having the garage located at the front of the house to lessen the impact of traffic noise from a heavily travelled street. Mr. Lee asked for the consensus of the Commission with regard to approving this plan or requiring a modification to eliminate having lots front on this major street. Mr. Lee requested that the Commission indicate their preference with regard to the various issues raised and give some direction to the staff prior to the preparation of a final report and recommendation on this proposed development. Mr. Lee also called attention to the question of lot widths, which by R-1 standards must be a minimum of 60 feet. In this development plan the lots are narrower than 60 feet, with development standards to assure adherence to the setback requirement of 10 feet on one side of the dwelling and 3 feet on the other. It is the staff's position that in this development there are no unusual circumstances to warrant varying from the R-1 standards, although the applicant's approach of relating standards to pad size rather than lot area is sound. The Chairman opened the public hearing for discussion of the tentative map. James Ashbaugh, planner with CEP Associated, representing El Rancho del Rey on this development, related the background of the preparation of this map, noting that their initial contacts with the City staff were in August or September of last year . The alignment used for East "J" Street and Paseo Del Rey were the ones most favored by the City staff for those routes even though they didn't coincide with the General Development Plan. The basis for the collector street as shown on the tentative map was an effort to minimize the amount of grading that would occur by coming up through the canyon. Mr. Ashbaugh discussed the relationship of the tentative map to the existing terrain of the area, pointing out the location of the various major canyons. Mr. Ashbaugh acknowledged the concern expressed last year by the Council with regard to the application of the Hillside Modifying District to this area. In designing this project a serious effort was made to respond to thosestandards, at least in intent, and if necessary in terms of the letter of the law. Mr. Ashbaugh discussed changes in the design which would be necessary to eliminate the condition of lots fronting on the collector street; this would entail a larger amount of grading. He felt the provision of deeper lots and T-type driveways provide a preferable solution. With regard to the need of furnishing other types of housing, Mr. Ashbaugh pointed out that an apartment comp~e~ adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road has been approved some time ago but has not been built; he contended there presently is no demand for apartments in this area, and at such time as they are deemed desirable there are other locations where they can be accomplished. The market at the present time is for single family detached houses. -12- August 23, 1976 Mr. Ashbaugh discussed the development standards as approved by the Planning Commission for Unit 4 and proposed by the developer for application to this development as well. He also pointed out that this proposal is bel,ow the density for development as approved in the General Development Plan, and touched briefly on their attempt to preserve canyons and ridges and to conform to the Scenic Routes Element as it applies to Telegraph Canyon Road. Concern was expressed by the Commission as to what their role at this time is to be. Mr. Lee again enumerated the major issues on which the staff and applicant wished to receive some indication of the Commission's intent; these include lot widths, lots fronting on Paseo Del Rey, street patterns as it relates to adjacent property, and location of schools. If the Commission feels there should be major changes in the map as presented, the applicant should be so informed in order that a revised map could be submitted. Mr. Carmen Pasquale asserted that the meeting scheduled by the City Council for September 2 has nothing to do with this 120 acre area, but will deal with a possible moratorium on the 450 acre area in Rice Canyon. He contended that the Council has already given them a go ahead for the preparation of plans for development of a subdivision on the 120 acres. In discussing the questions at issue, Commissioner Starr indicated he had no objection to the number of lots shown fronting on Paseo Del Rey; he felt this results in a more attractive development than having the rear of lots adjacent to a major road. He felt that possibly the number of lots in the development should be adjusted to maintain the standard 60 foot width. He felt this developer should not be required to answer as to where a school should be located. Commissioner G. Johnson supported the 60 foot lot width minimum. If it is lowered in this instance it may set a trend for increased pressure for smaller lot sizes. Commissioner Pressutti commented that the question here is whether to go by the standard R-1 lot widths, or to set standards relating to usable pad size which he felt is more meaningful. He felt that requiring a 60 ft. wide usable area would cause real problems to the developer. Mr. Ashbaugh advised that the development standards, as adopted for E1 Rancho del Rey Unit 4 and proposed for this tract also, establish a minimum width of 50 feet, minimum depth of 90 feet, and a minimum usable pad area of 5,000 sq. ft. Commissioner Floto indicated that he had no objection to houses fronting on Paseo Del Rey, but had strong reservations about narrower lots, since that creates a very crowded appearance; he cited Hilltop Vista as an example. He expressed opposition to any lot being less than 60 feet. Commissioner G. Johnson advised it was her understanding that the reason the smaller lot sizes were approved in Unit 4 was that extra area had been placed in usable park land to serve the residents of that area. She felt that unusable slopes in open space is not justification for approving smaller lots. Mr. Ashbaugh expressed the opinion that it might be possible to meet the R-1 requirements on this subdivision in terms of having 70% of the lots 7,000 sq. ft., 20% not less than 6,000 sq. ft. and 10% not less than 5,000 sq. ft., and end up with the same number of lots although there would probably not be as much usable pad area on some of. the lots as with the proposed plan. He felt that overall a -13- August 23, 1976 subdivision meeting the R-1 requirements would be less desirable in this area than one constructed with the development standards which are proposed. Mr. Lee indicated that with the direction given by the Commission, a staff report with conditions and a recommendation on this subdivision could be prepared for the meeting of September 13th. MSUC (Pressutti-Floto) The public hearing in consideration of the tentative subdivision map for E1 Rancho del Rey Unit #5 be continued to the meeting of September 13, 1976. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Chandler acknowledged a written communication from Mr. Cote requesting Commission consideration. Current Planning Supervisor Lee advised that this request relates to construction of an 8 unit apartment addition to an existing apartment complex at 1085 Del Mar Avenue. A portion of the required usable open space is located in a 6 ft. side yard area. It is the staff's opinion that usable space must have access from the units which it serves, otherwise it will not really be usable. It was therefore requested that the plans be revised to provide for access from each of the four ground floor units to the side area. The only access provided on the applicant's plans is from the ends of the building which makes it virtually inaccessible to the residents. Mr. Delbert J. Cote expressed his objection to providing doors to this 6 foot area for security reasons. He also pointed out that such access would be from the bedroom of the units which he felt was not desirable and that sliding glass doors would limit the arrangement of furniture. Commissioners R. Johnson and G. Johnson expressed support for the staff recommendation of requiring doors for access to the side yard area. Commissioner Starr noted that it is a very small area for any practical use. MS (Floto-Pressutti) The Commission recommends approval of the plans as submitted by the applicant. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Floto, Pressutti, Smith and Starr NOES: Commissioners Chandler, R. Johnson and G. Johnson ABSENT: None DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Peterson advised that he had no report at this time. COMMISSION COMMENTS Chairman Chandler reported that he would be on vacation and absent from Commission meetings on September 13th and 20th. -14- August 23, 1976 ADJOURNMENT The Chaiman adjourned the meeting at 11:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes, Secretary