Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1955-09-19 PC MINS MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIS CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Held September 19, 1955 The Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista, held its Regular Adjourned Meeting on the above date at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers at Civic Center with the follow- ing members -present: Hesse, Crosley, Raitt, Young and Shamrell. Absent: Members Henninger and Burford. Also Present: City Planner Scherer, Principal Civil Engineer Johnson APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was moved by Member Young, seconded by Member Crosley and unanimously carried that the minutes of the meeting of September 6, 1955, be approved, copies having been mailed to each member. RECOMMEN DATION: A short discussion by the Planning Commission regarding items which are added to the agenda after the agenda had closed and had been sent out to the interested parties. It was felt that any new items that were added be announced to the public at the opening of the meeting and taken up before the meeting proceeds to far. It was moved by Member Shamrell, seconded by Member Young that any new items added to the agenda after it is issued, should be brought up prior to 10:30. The motion was carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Shamrell, Young, Crosley, Hesse NOES: Chairman Raitt ABSENT: Members Burford and Henninger Resolution #t57., Change of Zone on Third Avenue from R-3 to C-1 Resolution ;57, amending ordinance #398 and setting the date for a public hearing, October 3rd, 1955, was read and noted by the Planning Commission. The resolution was accepted and signed as written. Vacation of Mankato: Maps showing the area involved in the proposed vacating of Mankato were displayed and explained to the Planning Commission and to the audience. Mr. Scherer,' City Planner, explained the situation confronting the City. The City owns a 30' half-street .and the J. M. Banister Developmen't Company and Mrs. Maude Rich Jones own the property on the opposite side of the street. The Banister Company placed a bond with the City in order to provide funds for the street improvements, if the City desires to widen Mankato Street for that block. If the street is opened, it. would by necessity have to be widened. The widening process would necessitate the moving of Mrs. Jones house on the northwest corner -of Mankato Street and Third Avenue approximately 15 to 20 .feet to the north., This has been the major drawback in the street improvement. At this time the J. Mm Banister Development Company wishes to affirm its offer and to receive a definite com- mitment as to the City' s intention as to the improvement of Mankato, so that they may ® 1 - I continue with the development of the shopping center at this location. The tentative plans for the shopping center =are for an expanded "U" shaped development with the pre- sent Mankato Street through the middle, and thereby dividing the shopping center and bredking the continuity of the development. If the street is maintained and widened, there will be a definite increase in the amount of-traffic both to and from the shopping center and from drivers using the improved street as a major street. The width of Mankato west from the shopping center is 50' , and it passes through a highly developed residential area. Also, pedestrians within the- shopping center would be crossing back and forth from one side to the other adding to the confusion of1the street and parking lot movements. These two results of a widened street would constitute a major traffic hazard and be detrimental to the City as a whole. A. gentlemen from the audience requested that'the letter from the Bannister Development Company be read again for the benefit of the audience. The letter was read, and Chairman Ra:i.tt pointed out that in explanation of the letter (to be perfectly fd r to the Banidter Company) that they are interested in obtaining a decision one way or another as to the street opening or closing, so that they might continue with their development. A petition was presented to the Commission by Mr. Edward Meditz on behalf of the property:-owners objecting to the vacation of Mankato Street. The petition, signed by 19 property owners living in the general vicinity.,-was read for the benefit of the Commission and the audience. Several property owners in that area spoke from the audience objecting to the closing of Mankato: Mr. Edward Meditz, 356 Mankato Street; Mrs. Allend, 676" Glover; Mr. Newsin, 571 Garrett; Mrs. Roberts, Secretary of the Citizens League, 568, Glover; and the property owner at 564 Garrett, all spoke against the vacation and acted as spokesmen for the majority of.the owners. The prime objections to the closing of Mankato seem to be the fact that they would have to enter the thoroughfare of Third Avenue from a way other than Mankato, thereby in a sense, backtracking. Other objections pertained to the possibility of Mankato 6treet closing at Fourth Avenue at a later date, if this closing'is allowed, thereby cutting Mankato off at both ends. They feel th a are enough dead-end streets in that general area at the present time -- Mankato, Garrett and Glover -- and that the 301 alley at the rear of the shopping center will not be of much use to them as it is used for commercial purposes.and will at times be blocked. The petitioners also feel that with the bus stop at Third and Mankato, it will be a great inconvenience to them to have to go to "H" Street and then east to Third Avenue, rather than through the shopping center. It was stated that driving through the Mayfair parking lot was hazardous, so that walking through would be more hazardous. It was the opinion of some of t he' protestants that trucks would not be able to make the turn into the alley for unloading at the shopping center because if the proposed wall extends out 'as far as is planned, it will not allow -enough spade. The objectors also felt that their property values would be lowered. Mr. Meditz stated that the realtor handling the original variance for the shopping center told them that Mankato would not be closed. He wanted to know for what other purpose is it being done if not for the Banister.Company. There was also a question as to how fire trucks and emergency vehicles get into the area if Mankato Street is closed.. Mr. Raitt said that he would try to answer some of the objections. Insofar as back- tracYng to get to Third, he stated it would be a very short distance, driving, to go out Glover to "H" and then to Third Avenue. It would be safer to do this because with the stoplight at Third and "Hu Street and clue to the fact that the sight-distance at the present Mankato and Third is very poor., it would be less hagardous. As far as - 2 - r Mankato being closed at Fourth Avenue, it would be very unlikely that anyone would consider the possibility of closing a street off altogether, and that there is already a full street existing at this point. The objection about the bus stop being at Mankato and Third and the passengers having to walk back to "H" then down to 'Glover to get in, Chairman Raitt stated he felt sure that the Banister Company would leave egress from their shopping center to that area which would solve that problem. As far as emergency vehicles are concerned, they do not use Mankato now as it is too narrow, so they would continue to use either Glover from 11H" Street or Mankato from Fourth Avenue. As far as walking through the parking lot being hazardous, it could be solved by installing a protected pedestrian walk through the parking lot, which walk might be obtainable. About the lowering of property values, Chairman Raitt asked for opinions from r.ealtors in the audience. Mr. Alley, a local realtor, stated he didn't feel it would affect the property value at all. Another realtor, from Los Angeles who was visiting the Planning Commission, stated that he didn't feel it would affect values as long -as pedestrian traffic was not cut off from Third Avenue, in fact, it would help maintain values. Chairman Raitt asked the opinions of the rest of the Planning Commission. Member Shamrell asked again what could be done in case of a fire on Garrett. The previous explanation was given. Member Crosley stated he felt the hazards caused by not closing Mankato would outweigh the hazards caused by closing it. Member Hesse felt that by leaving Mankato open, there would be four or five times more traffic on the street.than at present, which would be very undesirable from a safety standpoint. It was moved by Member Young, seconded by Member Hesse and unanimously carried that the matter should he held over until the next meeting to give the Commission time to consult with the Banister Company as to the possibility of constructing a protected crosswalk through the parking lot, or another equitable solution, and to consult with the City Administrator about certain features of the case and also the possibility of acquiring access to "I" Street from Mankato on Glover. Secondary Street Plan The City Planner presented the need for an_.adopted, official, major and secondary street plan which would become a part of the Master Plan cf the City of Chula Vista, as directed by State law. The City Planner explained the need for establishing secondary streets within the City. In his explanation it was brought out that the two most impor- tant reasons for a secondary street plan are to help the potential subdivider by showing him hoUz his land and adjacent lands could be developed and to prevent land within the City from becoming land-locked. It was moved by Member Young, seconded by Member Crosley and unanimously carried that the City Planner prepare a preliminary plan for discussion. That if it were possible to have this completed by the October 17th meeting, it would, at that time, be taken up for discussion and action. Also the realtors were to be invited for a preliminary dis- cussion. Subdivision Requirements Some discussion took place from the audience and Chairman Raitt recommended that the matter be studied further before any action was taken. The other Commissioners concurred. - 3 - Phase 2 of Rezoning of the City The City Planner discussed the need forddeciding on what area the Planning Commission would take into consideration as Phase 2 in the rezoning of the City: It was brought out during the discussion that the area which seemed to deserve immediate attention was Broadway and the lands to the west as far as Montgomery Freeway. The City Planner explained that this was the area he had in mind. He was ahked if a preliminary plan could be prepared for public hearing in December. Mr. Scherer stated that if the schedule of routine work went on according to routine, quite possibly the plan would be ready for the special meeting that month. He requested that he be permitted to con- tact the subdividers and realtors and ask for their help in preparing this area for re- zoning. It was moved by Member Hesse, seconded by Member Crosley and unanimously carried that the City Planner be directed to prepare the initial study on the area from the northern City limits to the southern City limits from Broadway to Montgomery Freeway. Included in the Broadway section would be the easterly side. It was recommended that the City Planner write a letter inviting the realtors to a preliminary discussion of this rezoning. TENTATIVE MAPS: Shaffer Court Tentative maps of the Shaffer Court Subdivision were presented by Mr. Brown along with a possible solution to the problem of a through street to Fourth Avenue. Mrs. Fish and Mr. Bender, property owners along this proposed street were present and were agree- able to working out a solution whereby they would be aiding in putting through a street. It was moved by Member Crosley, seconded by Member Shamrell and unanimously carried, that the subdivision be held over for a special meeting on September 26. In the interim the subdividers, Mrs. Fish, Mr. Bender and Mr. Jack (another property owner concerned) would meet and come to an equitable solution regarding the requested street. FINAL MAPS: Brown & Woolery #1 The final maps were presented and the Engineering Department recommendations read to the Commission for discussion. It was moved by Member Young, seconded by Member Hesse and unanimously carried that the final map of Brown & Woolery #1 be approved. The subdividers met with the condi- tions of the tentative maps. Fairway View The final map and the letter of approval from the Engineering Department were submitted to the Planning Commission. There was a minor change in the map from the tentative map due to a topographical condition. In other ways the map met with the conditions of the tentative maps. y Member Young moved, Member Crosley seconded and it was unanimously carried that the final map of Fairway View be approved. r ADJOURNMENT: It was moved by Member Young, seconded by Member Hesse and unanimously carried that the meeting adjourn, sine die. Respectfully submitted, Audrey S76hpuse, ..Secretary FAIRWAY VIDI e These minutes stand as corrected on October 3rd, to include a 51' setback reduction on fi-te lots for reasons stated in the minutes of the meeting of October 3rd. _ _ 5 _