Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1961-09-06 PC MINS MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA September 6, 1961 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista was held on the above date at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chamber at Civic Center, with the following members present: Stevenson, Comstock, Weakland, Stewart, Adams and Guyer. Absent: none. Also present: Director of Planning Fretz, City Attorney Duberg and Associate Engineer Phillips. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Member Stevenson, seconded by Member Guyer and unanimously carried that the minutes of the meeting of August 21 , 1961 be approved, copies having been mailed to each member. PUBLIC HEARING Master Plan of Tidelands Planning Director Fretz submitted maps showing: ownership of the area west of 101 ; the plan for development prepared by Mohr, Adams Plourde; the original plan for development prepared by the Planning Department in 1960; the revision of this plan, prepared by the San Diego Harbor Department and the San Diego Harbor De- partment 's map incorporating changes suggested by Chula Vista, and ultimately re- commended to the Planning Commission for adoption. Mr. Fretz described the elements of the map as recommended by the Harbor Commission - proposed and existing streets , mole-type piers with terminal facilities and the small craft harbor located near the northern boundary of Chula Vista. He stated that the actual "tidelands" extend from the mean high tide line west to the bulkhead line and that this plan envisions extension of the mole piers out to the pier head line. Member Stevenson asked about the zoning of the land. Chairman Stewart noted that the land is presently zoned M-2 for industrial uses and Planning Director Fretz stated that any -change in zoning should come with precise plans for the area rather than with the master plan. This being the time and place as advertised, Chairman Stewart opened the hearing. Mr. B. Hauser, Rohr Aircraft, stated that in looking over the various plans for development of the tidelands , the more recent one appears to better support the traffic problem that will be created with development of the bay front. He said there is particular interest at Rohr in having some north-south street developed in the immediate future to assist in traffic movement from the area to "E" Street overpass; that existing streets will not support traffic of any additional indus- trial development. He would like to see the master plan adopted. Mr. Frank DeVore, San Diego Gas and Electric Company, stated that the plan is acceptable to the Gas and Electric Company with the exception of the proposed mole pier at "J" Street which would encroach on their lease area and could affect their intake water. Chairman Stewart asked whether the channel for the intake water could be curved and Mr. DeVore explained that curving this would bring the intake channel too close to the discharge water. Mr. Hauser asked what effect the eventual dredging all along the pierhead line would have on the channel and Mr. DeVore stated that it appears this would be of benefit to the plant. Mr. Roland Tyce, Tyce Engineering Company, stated that he thinks the plan is very good, in general . They will have some problems along "G" Street if it is widened to eighty feet. He stated that the north=south street would sever their property. Mr. Hauser stated that he feels "G" Street is unimportant to development of the tidelands because it cannot go east past the freeway and that is why he feels north- south streets are necessary immediately to get the traffic north to "E" Street and eventually to the proposed interchange with the Sweetwater River freeway. Mr. Bill Link, co-chairman of the industrial development committee of the Chamber of Commerce, stated that for three years they have been trying to get industry to the area. Industry is not interested in particulars , only a master plan and the quicker one is adopted, the better it will be for industry. Mr. Barker, San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway Company, stated that they feel the plan is feasible insofar as furnishing rail service to the industrial area. Mr. James Lister, representing H. H. Johnson, property owner -in the area, stated that they feel the north-south streets are necessary also; that if the city is to rent or lease tidelands , adequate access is necessary. He stated they feel this is a step in the right direction. Mr. Louis Karp, representing Sam Vener, said they do not oppose a master plan, they feel a master plan is needed. He added that they do oppose the street plan as shown and the timing and scheduling of the street plan. He said that building these north- south streets as proposed, the city will be destroying an existing industry which brings into Chula Vista a $20,000 a week payroll . Mr. Karp stated that a master plan should be developed , but the street plan should be flexible to allow future changes. He stated they ask only that the streets be marked' "proposed" so that when they are built a hearing will be held and an opportunity will be given to learn what the actual street needs are and where the money is coming from, rather than going ahead with the streets and destroying an existing industry. Mr. E. G. Stubbs , Santa Fe-Railway Company, stated that they do not oppose master planning, but they do oppose this particular plan. He outlined how the land came under the ownership of Santa Fe and that it was sold to them in 1930, with the stipulation in the deed that it would be developed -industrially. He stated that basically they object to the small boat harbor which takes 88 acres of Santa Fe land and the street pattern which would take approximately 91 acres of their 400-acre holdings. Mr. Stewart asked what type of industry Santa Fe wants - warehousing or industry. Mr. Stubbs stated that basically they are in the transportation business and are desirous of developing the land for uses that will generate freight. Mr. Barker stated he agrees with Mr. Stubbs on the inadvisability of cutting up large tracts unless some way can be found to leave it flexible, so that streets can be changed. 2 - Planning Director Fretz stated the master plan will only be as successful as the property it deals with and we should incorporate as many sound suggestions as possible in the final plan. The Planning Director explained that a master plan imposes no control over land. It does , he said, provide a legal basis for the adoption of ordinances which regulate land development. He added that in the case of streets , the city has three basic means of implementation - voluntary dedication, with or without subdivision improvement plans; acquisition; or adoption of an ordinance prohibiting construction on precise rights-of-way which have been adopted as part of a master plan. He explained that in the latter alternate the city would then have to actually acquire these rights- of way within a reasonable time. The Commission discussed the proposed plan, noting that the plan proposed for adoption was prepared by the Harbor Department in San Diego. Mr. Sam Vener stated that the plan proposed for adopXtion is not Mr. Bates ' original plan. Planning Director Fretz pointed out the plan originally proposed by the planning staff and that plan originally sub- mitted by the San Diego Harbor Department. He added that Mr. Bates had commended the plan under consideration to the Harbor Commission for adoption. Mr. Neik Slijk stated that a master plan should be flexible so that it would be adaptable to circumstances. He also feels that with a master plan you need a hard core of streets which consists of a main artery and other streets as needed. If the street plan is too flexible, you basically do not have a street plan. There being no further comment, the hearing was closed. Member Comstock asked whether we are thinking of the tidelands being developed for shipping, warehousing, or manufacturing vs warehousing. Member Adams stated that he doesn 't think we are classifying uses to be permitted. Member Comstock stated we then would have a hodgepodge development. Chairman Stewart stated that it will be a long time before ships come in and in the mean time, small industry can be located. When ships can come in, they will replace small facilities. Perhaps these questions will be answered in 25 to 50 years. Member Comstock stated that in San Diego today, they have a mixture of manufacturing and distribution and the traffic pattern is so congested that traffic cannot be mored through. Planning Director Fretz stated that he feels this is an aspect that the Planning Commissior should make recommendations on to the City Council . Member Weakland stated that we know Santa Fe will hold their land for warehousing so this land - that filled by the City - should be held back for manufacturing. Member Comstock asked what is meant by a small boat,V-1n:•:reference to the small boat harbor. Planning Director Fretz stated the boat could be large or small - similar to facilities in Mission Bay, Shelter Island. Mr. R. Tyce stated that small boatsaould hardly go all the way across the bay to Point Loma. Chairman Stewart stated that he doesn 't know whether this is the place for the harbor, but he feels it should be included in the event ,they do open up a southern entrance to the bay. Member Comstock asked what the thinking is as to location of the Sweetwater River Channel . Chairman Stewart stated that the Corps of Engineers have not made a determination, but they will put it where they feel it will better suit the requirements of the area. Plan- ning Director Fretz stated that there are several factors which may make it more feasible and desirable to locate the craft harbor to the south. He said borings indicate that 1 it would be easier to create stable industrial lands to the north; tidelands extend - 3 - further east on the south giving the city total ownership; and the fact that we can control development on both sides of a location to the south would be a benefit. Member Weakland asked about recommending adoption of a portion of the plan and eliminate the streets until the need is there. Planning Director Fretz stated that we can adopt a master plan and even if it does show all the streets , until precise plans are adopted, the streets can be.--eliminated upon need. A master plan does not prohibit construction on right-of-way until an official plan line, or precise plans , are adopted. Member Weakland agreed we should get some north-south street to serve the existing fill , perhaps this could be adopted and the balance not until needed. Chairman Stewart stated we must have another hearing on this matter and suggested that the staff assimilate the suggestions and criticisms and take the plan back to the Harbor Commission. It was moved by Member Guyer, seconded by Member Weakland and unanimously carr-i:ed that after assimilating the suggestions and criticisms , the Planning Director incorporate those changes he feels advisable into the plan and take it back to the Harbor Commission. REZONING PUBLIC HEARING (cont.) - J. D. Peters - 3rd and "L" - R-1 to C-2 and Change in Building Line Mr. Art Schuller, 551 Third Avenue, representing Mr. J. D. Peters , applicant, stated they would like to have the matter continued again, that negotiations for the additional property needed for the proposed service station are nearing completion. He stated that they feel sure negotiations will soon be completed and asked that the hearing be continued to the October 2nd meeting. He submitted a letter from the Mobil Oil Company asking that approval be given the application. Member Comstock asked about the advisability of continuing the hearing from meeting to meeting. Chairman Stewart stated he feels they have made an honest effortto get the request ready for Commission action. Planning Director Fretz stated that he feels this should not be done where there are people interested in the matter, but this is not the case here and the owner requested all of the continuances. It was moved by Member Stevenson, seconded by Member Weakland and carried that the hearing be continued to October 2, 1961 . Member Comstock abstained. VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING - Hilltop Estates Subdivision - Horton Construction Company - Setback Reduction The application was read requesting reduction in setback along streets within Hilltop Estates Subdivision on lots as shown on map submitted. Planning Director Fretz stated that some of the lots involved are corner lots and that it has been the practice in subdivisions that side yard setbacks on corner lots be established at 10 feet, but that when this map was filed, the setbacks were shown as 15 or 20 feet on all streets. He stated that the Planning Commission has also been approving subdivisions with 15 foot setbacks with the understanding that setbacks wouldbe 20 feet if driveways were straight in, thus giving the affect of a staggered building line. Other lots involved in the request are along 'J" Street. The application requests reduction from 20 feet to 15 or 12 feet and those houses setting back less than 20 feet will have curved driveways. - 4 - This being the time and place as advertised, Chairman Stewart opened the hearing. He stated that apparently the applicant is only asking permission to do what is being allowed in other subdivisions. Member Comstock asked about the 20 foot setbacks along "J" Street and Planning Director Fretz stated that where the garages set back less than 20 feet, there will be a curved driveway. There being no further comment, the hearing was closed. It was moved by Member Adams and seconded by Member Guyer that the application of Horton Construction Company for reduction in setback for lots in Hilltop Estates Subdivision as shown on map submitted and described below, be approved: 1 . Lots 59, 34, 35, 40 and 21 , along proposed Monterey Avenue - reduction from 15 feet to 10, 12, 13 or 14 feet. 2. Lots 59, 61 , 63 , 64, 65 , 66 and 1 , along East "J" Street - reduction from 20 feet to 15 or 12 feet. 3. Lots 31 and 19, along proposed Lemire Drive - reduction from 15 feet to 14 or 10 feet. 4. Lot 25 , on proposed Mission Avenue - reduction from 15 feet to 10 feet. Further that action be based on the following findings: 1 . Setbacks established in this subdivision exceed those established on other subdivisions in the same area. 2. The establishment of larger setbacks will deprive the owner of the lots of use of part of his property which other property owners in the area are permitted to use. 3. It doesn 't appear that the granting of the variance will be materially detrimental to property in the area. The motion carried ,by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Adams , Guyer, Stevenson, Comstock, Weakland and Stewart NOES: none ABSENT: none SUBDIVISIONS Cindy Park No. 3 - Tentative Map Planning Director Fretz stated that the map is not ready for action and Chairman Stewart directed that it be placed on the agenda when ready. MISCELLANEOUS Staggered Setbacks - 20 and 15 feet. Planning Director Fretz stated that as mentioned during the discussion on the variance application of Hilltop Estates , it has been the practice to establish a 15 foot setback but require a 20 foot setback when driveways to houses are straight - 5 - in. He stated that our ordinance provides for a minimum setback and that we actually have no written ordinance allowing the building department to require a 20 foot setback for straight-in driveways.. He asked if the Commission would consider adopting a resolution authorizing this practice. Member Adams asked why anything in writing is necessary as long as it is working out, that if it is put in writing it could be binding in areas that the Commission would 'like a larger setback. Planning Director Fretz stated that the resolution could be written so that where 15' foot setbacks are established , they are established on the basis that there will be an area maintained between the garages and sidewalks adequate for the parking of an automobile, without the automobile overhanging public property. This would be for new areas being developed. He stated that the Building Department feels they should have something in writing to back them up when requiring a larger setback than established on the map. The Commission asked that a resolution be prepared for the next meeting, incor- porating this policy. Registration for League of California Cities Conference Planning Director Fretz stated that at the next meeting he would ask for reservations for the League of California Cities conference to be held in San Francisco on October 22-25. Fallout Shelters Planning Director Fretz read a proposed amendment to she Zoning Ordinance, eliminating front, side and rear yard requirements for fallout shelters , as discussed at the last meeting. He asked the City Attorney whether the Commission could recommend it as an emergency ordinance. Mr. Duberg stated that the resolution should contain a statement as to the emergency. The Commission discussed the application of the proposed ordi= nance. RESOLUTION NO. 216 - Recommending to City Council Adoption of An Emergency Ordinance Eliminating Front, Side and Rear Yard Requirements for Fallout Shelters. Offered by Member Stevenson, passed , adopted and approved by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Stevenson, Comstock, Weakland , Stewart, Adams and Guyer NOES: none ABSENT: none ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Member Weakland , seconded by Member Stevenson and unanimously carried that the meeting adjourn to September 18, 1961 . Respectfully submitted, Audrey Ston house Secretary