Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1963-10-24 PC MINS MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA October 24, 1963 The adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista was held at 7:00 P.M. on the above date in the Council Chamber at Civic Center with the following members present: Stevenson, Stewart, Comstock, Johnson, Willhite, Adams and Guyer, Absent: None. Also Present: Acting Planning Director Warren, City Attorney Duberg, City Engineer Cole and Principal Engineer Harshman. Architectural Consideration - La Bonita Town and Country Apartments - Bonita Road Revised Plans Mr. Warren discussed the history of this item, stating the original plans were disapproved by the Planning Commission by a tie vote. On appeal by Mr. Thomas to the Council , the decision of the Commission was over-ruled. The Council stated that the basic plan was acceptable, but that revised plans subject to Commission approval , were required. Mr. Warren further explained that if the Commission approved the re- vised plans, to be presented tonight, this will be a final action and would not have to go back to the Council . The developer, Mr. Daniel Thomas , noted the revisions made in his plans: (1) the roof will be pitched and be a shake-type material ; (2) the..s.:i d es will be of redwood board and batten (3) underneath the porch will be Mexican brick; (4) the recreation building will remain the same; (5) the structure will be reduced to two stories. Vice-Chairman Stewart asked if the masonry wall will be left along the front property line. Mr. Thomas said it would be, as he considered this an important feature. Chairman Stevenson asked if any problems were foreseen in trying to get the shake- shingle roof. Mr. Thomas said they did foresee some problems with the Fire Depart- ment; however, he is prepared to meet whatever requirements they set. The apartment will now be two stories, instead of three, and will be 24 feet high, with this pitched roof The plot plan and landscaping will be the same as shown on the original plans. Mr. B. Alsobrook, 4204 Loma Paseo, representing.the Sweetwater -Val',le.y;,Civic Associa- tion, stated the Association wi l l withdraw their:.:objections',,'t: the- mattes,. _based on these revised plans showing the two-story construction MSUC (Guyer - Stewart) The revised plans shown on the plot plan presented be approved subject to the following conditions: Member Comstock abstained. 1 . The roof be of a shake-type construction, approved by the Fire Department. 2. Modified roof shall be used as shown on the plans submitted October 24, 1963. 3. Bonita Road facade of the apartments shall be finished with redwood board and batten and redwood strips. 4. One and one-half parking spaces shall. be provided for each unit. 5. Landscaping and plot plans shall be as shown on the original drawings. 6. Masonry wall and wooden screen shall be provided along Bonita Road and shall be moved back within the 5 foot setback. 7. Further details shall be discussed with the Planning Director. -1- Rezoning - Public Hearing - Northwest Corner Woodlawn Avenue and "F" Street - C-2-P to M-1 Mr. Warren submitted a plot plan showing the location of the property, delineating the zoning and use of adjacent areas. Mr. Warren commented that the zoning in the area is not as it should be; that in consider,i.ng rezoning for this area, the Commission should think of this change as the first step in a comprehensive rezorning of this area. The zoning history of this area was related. In December, 1958, the Commission con- sidered a request to rezone this area between "E" and "F" west of Woodlawn from M-1 and R-3 to C-2. The request was disapproved and upon appeal to the City Council , the re- quest was approved in February, 1959. The Planning Commission endorsed the Council 's action because they were assured that plans for development of the area would be subject to their approval . A proposed site plan ordinance to govern this was never enacted. Mr. Warren stated that, due to the C-2 zoning, most of the residential use here was non-conforming. Other things to take into consideration are: location is a prime factor in justifying this rezoning; access to freeway; access to City core'; good traffic control ; servi;c to the railroad; some possibility "F" Street will be extended westerly in the future; there is little need for this quantity of this type of Commercial zoning here; there is a need for "ready-to-use" M-1 zoning in the City. Mr. Warren pointed out several industrial sites , one of which was the Sweetwater Valley Industrial Park, which is subject to innundation; many others not available for im- mediate development. The staff's opinion is that this entire portion should become a part of eventual re- zoning to M-1 . Mr. Warren showed slides of existing light industrial development in other cities in Southern California. The Commission asked about the zoning of this area in relation to the Master Plan. Mr. Warren said he hesitated to discuss this aspect since the general public has not, as yet, had a chance to review the Sketch Plan; however, he would say that the Con- sultants will recommend a similar use pattern. The Industrial Subcommittee working on the Master Plan proposed that the entire area between Broadway and the Montgomery Freeway be rezoned M-1 , although this should not be considered at this time. This being the time and place as advertised, Chairman Stevenson opened the public hearing. Those who spoke in opposition were: Ray Halpenny, owner of property at 670 "F" Street, Nick Besker, speaking also for his partner, Herbert Allen, owning property at 267 Wood- lawn, Mrs. Virginia Summer, resident of Terry's Trailer Park, Richard Taylor, 653 "F" Street, Mr. Jack Morrison, a resident of Terry's Trailer Park, Mr. L. R. Terry, 1449 Third Avenue and owner of the Trailer Park and Pau] Yeager, 414 "J" Street. A letter from the "Metropolitan Land Company" owning property north of proposed rezoning, and signed by ten investors was also read. The reasons stated by the protestants for opposing the rezoning are as follows: (1) adjacent private property would be devaluated; (2) "E"- Street is first access to City and should be developed in the most attractive manner possible; (3) there has been a continual up-grading in the area and the proposed use would be detrimental to the area; (4) existing uses in area conform to R-3 or lesser use; (5) area,was R-3 until '4 years ago when a mass rezoning took place; this did much to retard development here; (6) rail- road tracks here are only used slightly; in the next 5 years , the railroad will be re- located; (7) mobile-home parks were reclassified to R-3 about 2 years ago; (8) three sites were presented to the Council for possible yard sites, one of -which was $5,000 less per acre than the proposed site; (9) application was made 4 months ago for a -2- residential development in this .location,,,„but City refused zoning; (10) Holiday Gardens broke ground for multiple dwellings about one month ago nearby this site; (11) A city corporation yard would have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood because of the traffic and the heavy equipment going in and out of the place; (12) property is not zoned for manufacturing and this is a manufacturing use; (13) other locations are available that are properly zoned for yards;; (14) former City Planner admitted a yard here would effect uses of the adjacent properties; (15) existing use would be "spot zoning;” (16) City Ordinance was formed to encourage the most appropriate use of land: to promote health, safety and general welfare; (17) "F" Street is dead-end street and with the noise and traffic, it would be detrimental to the area; (18) a manufacturing use can be a 24-hour operation; (19) City Council is "bulldozing" through their in- tentions in buying this property and using it for what they want, regardless of public opinion; (20) the proposed use would be aesthetically displeasing; (21) the Freeway serves as a good buffer between Industrial and Residential use; (22) Terry's Trailer Park is expanding to make room for the large expando trailers--his place would be hurt by this rezoning; (23) about 97% of the people in the area do not want it rezoned. Chairman Stevenson commented that if a shopping center were located here, there would be more traffic generated here than from an Industrial use. He went on to explain that the matter before the Commission was the rezoning of this parcel to M_-1 and not the proposed corporation yard being located here. Mr. Warren indicated that the M-1 zone is generally a non-manufacturing zone. The traffic generated here would depend on the type of use located on the site. Mr. Warren again referred to the land use map, noting that a great deal of the uses in the area were non-conforming. The issue before the Commission tonight, he added, was not the corporation yard , merely the rezoning of the parcel . However, in view of the fact that the remonstrants, as anticipated, refused to leave the specific use of this site out of the rezoning question:,and have stressed their opposiV on to it, it is only fair to let the proponents of this specific use present their case. Mr. Lane Cole, City Engineer, presented his report by stating that the Commission requested at the last meeting, an explanation of what a corporation yard entails. An organizational chart was shown of the city departments and a detailed Public Works Departmental chart was submitted. The Corporation Yard involves the following: (1) street division (2) custodial tools (3) street maintenance section (4) equipment section (5) utilities section (6) street painting and signs (7) bu0'17ding division (8) traffic devices technician (9) miscellaneous corporation yard activities (10) employee parking lot (11) Purchasing Department. Mr. Cole then showed slides of all the City equipment. There are 84 pieces of equip- ment altogether. A traffic count taken recently indicated that only about 10 % of the traffic going to and from the yard was from the heavy equipment. A trailer park, if put in here, would generate approximately 570 trips per day; commercial , depending on the use could have 960 to 1200 trips per day. Mr. Cole then explained how this particular site was chosen. Originally 16 sites were selected, but because of various reasons: cost, topography, location, etc. this site was selected. In selecting the site, they based their needs on a 100,000 population which is estimated as the future growth of Chula Vista. The average corporation yard site in other cities is 7.6 acres. Presently, they have 32 acres at "H" Street, 4 acre on '°G" and 4 acre on "J". The proposed site encompasses 6 acres which they feel is adequate in view of the future growth of the City. If they wanted the "ideal" location in view of work areas, etc. , they would have to chose the "Gym" or the "Civic Center." The general locationof commercial areas need the most attention; therefore, a site in the Core area was chosen. -3- Mr. Cole then gave the average traffic count on the major streets in Chula Vista: 23,000 for Broadway, 13,000 for "E" Street, 10,000 for "H" Street, etc. The estimated time to the Civic Center from this site, t,"raveling 20 miles per hour is 2 minutes, to the Junior College - 18 minutes, to Bonita Valley would be 9 minutes. San Diego's corporation yard is situated 20 minutes from their work center. Mr. Cole then showed a number of slides of corporation yards in other California cities. He stated this yard could have attractive landscaping and a block wall screen; it can be as attractive as any commercial development. Since the corporation yard is the most important facility in the City, it behooves the City to locate it at the site where it would do the most good. This location is the best they could find because of its proximity, and the cost of the development will be less than the other sites studied. Chairman Stevenson questioned the 24-hour day operation and the tracks going down "F" Street. Mr. Cole stated this is basically an 8-hour day operation with the sweeper starting at 3:30 a.m. There is a second crew that comes in from 3:30 p.m. to midnight, mainly to repair the police cars. The tracks would not affect the yard one way or another. In time, the railroad will remove the tracks from F1F" Street. Member Will- hite asked if there would be office space provided; Mr. Cole said there would be. They will hire a consultant to plan the yard. Chairman Stevenson felt the Commission has an obligation to the adjacent property owners as to the type of development going in there, and said he felt they should put the architectural control on the rezoning. Mr. Cole endorsed this suggestion. Mr. Charles Brown, realtor and owner of adjacent property, debated the issue that the M-1 zone was non-manufacturing. He is presently serving on the Industrial Committee at the Chamber of Commerce, and spoke of the C-2 zoning here, a portion of which was rezoned to R-3 because of demand. Member Comstock questioned this , stating the land could have been developed as R-3 up to about a year ago and wondered why .this hadn' t been done. Mr. Ray HaiTpenny answered this, stating the building department could relate the history of this. He went on to state a few more objections to the yard site: (1) being close to the freeway makes this site an ideal one for multiple development; (2) this yard will be three times as active as the California Water and Telephone site; (3) Mr. Cole's basis for not locating the yard west of the Freeway is unsound; (4) there are other sites available. There being no further comment either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Chairman Stevenson stated here that in the final analysis, the Commission must base any rezoning up on good zoning practice and need; not for a specific use. In view of City activity and interest in this area, it appears to be in order to discuss location of a Corporation Yard on this site. Vice-Chairman Stewart discussed the objections and said these were consistent with those involved in the location of trailer parks , churches, schools, water tanks, etc. People located next to large acreages of undeveloped land in the core area should be prepared for a variety of uses coming in. The City must have a centrally located yard; this particular site has a freeway on one side, commercial on the other side and M-1 to the South. Mr. Stewart stated further that he felt there was no better compatibility than these uses. Since this is a public street, the City has just as much a right to use it as anyone else. The Commission discussed applying architectural control on the site, but Member Comstock objected, stating they would find it hard to establish any existing character. -4- Vice-Chairman Stewart commented that Mr. Cole's attitude was that the yard would be a credit to the area. He added that this could set an example to the other industrial developments in the community. Member Adams related the fluctuation of opposition concerning other proposed uses in the past. He said it would be wise to attach the "D" zone. The Prudential Overall building directly across the street could be used for comparison. Member Comstock disagreed, stating this area had a number of mixed uses and questioned how they were going to compare a yard site to this. The ordinance states it must be "harmonious" with the area. Member Adams-commented that they "have to start somewhere." Member Willhite stated he objected to rezoning this M-1 because of the industrial trend that could follow. He does not object to having the City yard located here, however, and believes it would enhance the area. RESOLUTION NO. 290 Recommending to City Council the Rezoning from C-2-P to (MSC Adams - Stewart) M-1-D, the Northwest Corner of Woodlawn Avenue and "F" Member Willhite voted"no". Streit Findings are based on the following: 1 . Good zoning practice because property is boarded on the west by railroad tracks and the freeway, and on the south by heavily developed property and a railroad track; .on the north by a C-2 development and east by vacant property zoned C-2. 2. There is a need for more ready-to-use M-1 property in the City. City Attorney Duberg informed the Commission that if .they agreed that a corporation yard could be located here, they should pass a resolution to this effect. RESOLUTION NO. 291 A City Corporation Yard be a Permitted Use in an M,�,l (MSUC Stewart - Comstock) Zone Findings are based on the following: 1 . In view of the fact that this is similar to a contractor 's yard, public utilities yard, service yard, etc. 2. In- the opinion of the Commission, this use is no more objectionable than those allowed uses enumerated in the M-1 section of the Zoning Ordinance. Findings of the Planning Commission Denial of Rezoning -_ Beulah E. Whitney Mr. Warren submitted a plot plan reviewing the location of the proposed zone change. The findings were read in which Mrs. Whitney was denied a zone. change from R-3 to C-2 for 3 lots located on the west side of Landis Avenue, 141 feet north of "E" Street and for 2 lots on the east side of Landis Avenue, also 141 feet north of "E" Street. The Application also requested reduction in front setback for this property from 15 feet to 5 feet. The Commission discussed the findings with Member Adams commenting that a statement to the effect that this rezoning would encourage strip commercial north along Third Avenue should be put into the findings. -5- MSUC (Comstock - Guyer) Findings be approved, as read. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Comstock - Adams) Meeting adjourn sine die. Meeting adjourned at 10:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, GJ ennie M. Fulasz Secretary