Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1955-10-17 PC MINS MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF - ' CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Held October 17, 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: Shamrell, Burford, Hesse and Crosley. Absent: Chairman Raitt and Member Young. Also Present: City Planner Scherer. Member Crosley acted as Chairman due to -the absence of Chairman Raitt and Vice-Chairman Young. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:: It was moved by Member Shamrell, seconded by Member Burford and unanimously carried that the minutes of the meeting of October 3rd, 1955 be approved, copies having been mailed to each members,. VACATION OF 14ANKA TO: City Planner Scherer stated that according to the minutesof Planning Commission meet- ing 6f1106tober^3rd, the approval of the vacation of Mankato Street was held up until the J. M.Banister Company presented a graphic drawing of the agreement which was dis- cussed at that meeting. V4r. Farrell, representing the Banister Company, presented such a drawing. Mr. Scherer discussed the artist's sketch of the proposed shopping center area and pointed out the provisions made for access to the public parking area from both Third Avenue and from Garrett Avenue. Member Crosley asked if there were any questions from the audience concerning the proposal. Mr. Meditz, who had acted as spokesman for the -group of objectors at the previous meet- ings, agreed that the sketch showed exactly what was asked for by the citizens group. Mr. Meditz was whole-heartedly in favor of the proposal as submitted by the Banister Company and was pleased with the cooperation shown by them. in attempting to iaork out a solution to a somewhat difficult problem. One of the residents of the area, Mr. Lucas, raised the question whether anything could be done regarding loading and unloading of semi-trailer trucks that persistently block the alley in back on the Mayfair Market. Mr. Scherer said he would attempt to contact. the 1'4yfair Market and ask them if they could try to work out some solution so that the alley would remain.passable at all times while the loading and unloading takes place. He stated he felt some solution could be worked out which would not cause difficulty to the residents in the area or to Mayfair 1'larket. Mrs.. Lyle Aland, 576 Garrett, voiced her objection to the proposed artist sketch and plan as presented by the Banister Company. It is her thought that the J. M. Banister Company provide a pedestrian walk-way from Garrett to Third Avdnue, which would protect ped- estrians from cars entering the parking area from the access-way between Third Avenue and Garrett. She was also extremely concerned with driving through this access-isle. She indicated that she felt that with the tremendous number of cars that would be using this parking area that some protection should be offered to the 'driver of the vehicle using the access-way to drive from Garrett to, Third Avenue. She asked the J. M. Ba nister Company if they would not provide some sort of vehicle protection, such as solid curbs - 1 - _ and sidewalks on both sides, of the access-way. She stated that she would rather have a street than an access-way and felt that the cost should be borne by the Banister Company entirely. It was pointed out in the course of the discussion that vehicles using the parking lot usually drive somewhere in the neighborhood of five toten -miles per hour through the parking lot and that it probably would be safer to drive -through this parking lot than on. many of the streets in the City of Chula Vista.' The Planning Commission felt that the objections raised by Mrs. Aland were not sufficiently valid so to delay the proceedings any longer and that it seemed unnecessary in view of the fact that the great majority of the abutting residents no longer objected to the vacating ,of Mankato Street. Member Shamrell moved, Member Hesse seconded and it was unanimously carried that a letter to the City Council outlining the proposal of the Banister Company, be approved as written and forwarded to the City Council. The proposal of the Banister Company is as follows: a. Provide a 301 access at the intersection of Third Avenue and Whitney, a 301 access at the intersection of Shasta and Third, and .a r ,- a 30' access opening- at the intersection of Garrett and Mankato Street. b. Provide a pedestrian walk-way extending eastward (suggested minimum 81 width) from the intersection of Mankato and Garrett for a distance of at least 135 feet. c. Prepare an agreement and/or covenant, which is to be attached to the deed of the property, that they (The J. M. Banister Company) will.maintaLn, for as long as the property in question is used as a commercial shopping center, -a 301 access-way between Shasta and Third and Whitney and Third to Mankato and Garrett. d. Design the -intersection of Mankato and Garrett and the two service drives so that sufficient turning radii is provided permitting adequate egress and ingress of heavy vehicular traffic into the service drives. e. Continue the proposed service drive, on the westerly boundary of their property in an easterly direction until it intersects a proposed 301 access-way to "I" Street, .thus assuring a continuous service access to the southerly portion of this development. f. Construct and maintain the parking and pedestrian access-way in conformance with the Department of Public Works requirements. PLANNING: Corte-I,4iaria - Proposed Street A letter from the Corte Maria and "D" Street Cooperative Improvement District was read presenting a plan to improve Corte Maria and -I'D" Streets and asking for a six foot reduc- tion in the required street width of 36t . The property owners in that area propose to pay for the street improvements themselves and presented maps showing the work to to be done. After a short discussion, the Planning Commission felt that they. should knowmore about the area in general before they attempted to act upon the request of the property owners* It was moved by Member Burford, seconded by Member Hesse and unanimously carried that - 2 - the matter be held over until the next meeting so that the committee from the Planning Commission could look the site over and determine the best possible action. Secondary Street Plan: Mr. Scherer presented a map showing a proposed secondary street plan and explained the purpose of this plan saying that it would be an aid to subdividers in preparing new sub- divisions by suggesting where they allot space for proposed streets. This would, in a manner help to insure the City against furture land-locked areas such as this City now has. The City Planner suggested that the committee from the Planning Commission investi- gate a portion of this proposed map at each regular field trip, until it is completely surveyed, so that they might best decide the proper location of future streets. The Planning Commission felt it was a meritable suggestion and that they would take a portion of the City at atime, starting with the next regular field trip on Thursday, November 3rd. Subdivision Requirements: City Planner Scherer stated that to makeithe job of the Planning Commission a little easier, he would like to suggest that Ordinance #377 governing subdivision requirements be amended to include the following: "After a preliminary discussion with the developer or agent, that the subdivider shall stake or -flag the property boundary on the center- line of all proposed streets and the like, prior to the field trip of the investigating committee, and shall notify the Department of Planning when this is accomplished. It is suggested that the staking be done by Wednesday, preceeding the Planning Commission meeting." The Planning Commission felt the suggestion, if carried through, would aid them greatly in their review and decision on Subdivision maps. They directed that the City Planner prepare a Resolution of Intention to amend the ordinance referred to above. Parking Ordinance: A short discussion transpired during which the PlanningCommission requested that the National City-Chula Vista Reity Board set a date for a meeting with the Planning Commis- sion to discuss the Parking Ordinance as proposed by the City Planner. Copies of this proposed ordinance had been distributed at a'previous date, to give the Realty Board and the Commission time to read and consider it. Mr. C. C. Alley, President-of the Realty Board, stated that Monday night, the 31st of October would be satisfactory with them for a joint meeting. The Planning Commission stated that in the interim they could meet and consolidate their thinking on the proposed ordinance and that it would give the realtors time to do this if they so desire. The Planning Commission sdt a date of Monday, October 24th for their meeting. ZONING: Resolution #58, rezoning area from Broadway to Montgomery Freeway . Maps showing the present zoning and the proposed rezoning of the area were presented to the Commission and an explanation of the various colors and the changes themselves were explained. Mr. C. C. Alley presented a letter from the National City - Chula Vista Realty Board approving the proposed rezoning in general with a few exceptions. All but one of these suggestions had been incorporated already into the proposed plan. The City Planner had proposed zoning the. Vista Square Housing Project as C-2, explaining that when the time comes, it could be adapted to whatever is needed, residential or . - 3 - or commercial. The Realty Board requested that a 3001 frontage',along Broadway be zoned C!7',2 and that a distance of approximately 150 feet to the rear of the above proposed C-2 frontage, be zoned as R-3. After a short discussion it was decided by the Planning Commission that at this time the entire Vista Square area be left out of the rezoning because of the uncertainty of when the land will be cleared of the housing project and the uncertainty of how the people want it to be zoned. Planning C ommission Resolution #58, amending the zoning ordinance to rezone the area above-mentioned, was read to the Planning Commission and the audience and a public hearing date set for the November 7th meeting. Proposed Revision of Ordinance #424, Junk Yards and the like Mr. Scherer presented to the Commission a proposed revision to Ordinance #424, pertaining to junk yards and the like, for their study and possible action; Ordinance on Signs and Definitions: The ordinance prepared defining subdivisions, etc., was referred back to the Planning Commission from the City Council at its meeting of October 11, for further study. The Planning Commission stated that they would study it further. MISCELLANEOUS': City Planner Scherer read to the Commission from. the City Council minutes of their October 11th meeting the portion referring to a vacant chair on the Planning, Commission. Mr. Claude Henninger mailed a letter to the City Council resigning from the Planning Commission due to the pressof new businesses. The Oommission-,ekpressed. is°-regret that Mr. .Henninger would not be with' them and wished to express their thanks for the marvelous job he had done while a member of the Commission. ADJOURNMEKT: It was moved by Member Burford, seconded by Member Shamrell and unanimously carried that the meeting adjourn sine die. Respectfully submitted, Audrey Sto ehouse, Secretary