HomeMy WebLinkAbout1955-08-01 PC MINS r
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Held Monday, August 1, 1955
The Chula Vista Planning Commission met ih the Council Chamber at Civic Center
at 7:30 P.M. on the above date with the following members present: Raitt, Henninger,
Young and Crosley. Absent: Member Burford. Also Present: City Planner Scherer,
Principal Civil Engineer Johnson, City Attorney Campbell.
Chairman Raitt presided over the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES!
It was moved by Member Henninger, seconded by Chairman Raitt and unanimously
carried that the minutes of the meeting of July 18, 1955 be approved, copies having
been mailed to each member.
CORRESPONDENCE:
Name Change for Third Avenue Extension to Memorial Drive
Copies of letters from the Third Avenue Junior Woman's Club and from the City
Council requesting and approving that Third- Avenue Extension be changed to Memorial
Drive were presented to the Commission. It was agreed by the members that a name
change would be advisable for reasons stated in the letter from the Third Avenue
Junior Woman's Club. .
RESOLUTION NO. 55 _ Changing name of Third Avenue Extension to Memorial Drive
A resolution. having been prepared and read, and the public hearing set for
September 6, 1955 at 8:00 P.M., the members passed, adopted, and approved it by the
following vote, to-wit:
AYES: ' Chairman Raitt, Members Young, Henninger, Crosley
NOES: None
ABSENT: Member Burford
Re-zoning National Avenue to C-2
A letter from the First National Bank, Chula Vista Branch, signed by Harry
Allison, was read and discussed, asking that National Avenue be rezoned as 0-2.
Mr. Campbell said that he felt that the City Council did not wish to rezone National
Avenue as C-2 and therefore didn't plan to hold a public hearing. The Planning
Ooramission can again refer it to the City Council if they so choose, if not, it will
be a "dead issue". Chairman Raitt asked that the subject be held until such time as
a discussion between the City Council and the Planning Commission could be had to
determine what was actually needed on National Avenue and that some compromise could
be reached.
RECOMMENDATION AND DISCUSSION - Joseph Guererro, 11 .3 Vista Way
After a discussion as to the possibility of setting a precedent, the Plan-
ning Commission recommends that a letter be written to Mr.Guererro giving the
Commissions findings on a variance requested to cors truct a wall and fence and
that a recommendation be made to City Council that the filing fee be refunded
to Mr. Guererro as the application was withdrawn. It was moved by Member Young,
seconded by Member Crosley and unanimously carried that the above letters, as drafted,
be mailed.
RECOMMENDATION & DISCUSSION - The Hogard Company - Food Basket
City Planner Scherer explained the situation to the Gonimission and presented
maps submitted and approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting of February 79
1955, when the zone variance for construction of. a retail grocery and parking lot
in an 11-3 zone, was granted. The plans as submitted showed a Ot setback, the R-3
zone requires a 301 setback, and in approving the variance for use, that fact was
not noted. Mr. Gardner (representing the Hogard Company) stated that they felt that
as they had shown the setback on their plot plan and that as it had been passed by
the Commission that it was a part of the variance granted. Mr. Gardner said that
there will be a 318" setback on Third Avenue and an 51 setback on 11,71' Street. He
stated there was no way they could add a few feet to the setback without considerable
expense.
Mr. Raitt felt that Stafford and Gardner sha�ld have known the setback
recognized along Third Avenue. 1"ir.Raitt asked that in the future when a building
permit is applied for which would necessitate a variance that it be brought to the
Planning Department for final approval. He feels that it is his job to protect the
City of Chula Vista, and that in the future variances were to be handled in such a
manner as to avoid any entanglements.
OPINION - Asked of Mr. Campbell regarding variances in general
Chairman Raitt asked for legal advice as to whether or not when a variance is
granted for use, should the Commission be held to any setback ddviation included in
the requested variance for use. Mr. Campbell stated he believed that the Commission
was bound to accept a setback in any case, when it was included in the application
for a use variance. To avoid any future mistakes, the variance should state the set-
back intended by the contractors and the setback now recognized. Mr. Raitt asked if
when a land use variance was granted whether it included all the uses and the setback
in the zone, or whether it was for a definite use and would not include the setback
of the zone under which the use was allowed. Mr. Campbell states that the setback
intended by the applicant should be included in the variance application whether it
be a use variance or another type of variance. He suggested that the applicant put
into a variance exactly what deviations from normal were being requested. Mr. Raitt
inquired whether it could be part of a motion approving a variance that if a use
variance be granted the land is to be used only for that specific purpose and not
just for any use in that applicable zone with the setbacks observed in that zone.
Mr. Campbell stated that the applicant should only do what the applicant has specifi-
cally asked for in the variance application and what the Commission specifically asks
to be done. Mr. Campbell was requested by the Commission to prepare an opinion as
to what could be incorporated into a variance application to prevent any future "hidden .
variance".
LETTER: To Mr. Campbell concerning review of ordinances.
A letter was presented to Meredith Campbell asking that he send copies of ordinance;
to the Commission that pertain to the function of the Planning Commission before they
are sent to the City Council for final action. Mr. Oampbell. stated it was a com-
mendable practice but that it quite possibly would not be workable, as the time given
him to prepare ordinances was limited; but, that every effort would be made to see
that the Commission received a copy ae requested, before final action.
Mr. Campbell asked to be excused at 8:30 P.M.
M-1 ZONE EXTENSION ON NATIONAL AVENUE:
Mr. Scherer explained that 6tafford and Gardner wanted their opinion as to
whether or not their company could get an extension of their M-1 use to cover the
balance of their property on National Avenue, i.e., from "K" to "L" north and south,
and from National Avenue to proposed East Park Lane east and west, a distance of
approximately 155' •
Chairman Raitt said the Commission could not give an ppinion and requested that
it be submitted in the form of a variance.
VAHALLA SUBDIVISION - South side of "H", west of Fourth
Dale Horton, A. B. Ellington, Subdividers. A continuation of Brown & Woolery,
Unit ##1. The committee recommendations on this subdivision were read by
Mr. Scherer and agreed to by the Commission and the representative of the subdividers.
It was moved by Member Young, seconded by Member Henninger, and unanimously
carried that the tentative plans be approved subject to the conditions set forth by
the committee and the condition submitted by the Department of Engineering, which
are as .follows:
a. that a 1' lot be dedicated on the easterly end of Shasta Street&'
b. That a 4' lot be dedicated on the rear of lot 9, and a 4' easement be
dedicated on the westerly line of lot 10.
c. That lots 1 through 4 be resubdivided so that ShastaStreet will not
contain a jog. (On the final maps).
d. That a 1' lot be dedicated to the westerly end of Shasta when the re-lotting
has taken place.
e. That the request of a 10t setback in lot 4 be denied due to the replotting.
f. That the subdivider put in curb, sidewalk and gutter but not pavement in
that westerly portion of Shasta Street from Fig west to the property line.
g. That "H" Street be improved for 32 foot width from centerline, and sidewalk
be placed at property line.
RECOMMENDATION:
Member Henninger moved, Young seconded and it was unanimously carried that
the Commission recommend to the City Council that the City take steps to acquire
the land abutting the east portion of Vahalla Subidivsion, described as follows,
for street purposes: that portion of the east half of lot 12 of quartersection
148, more particularly described as the northerly 271 and the easterly 125' of the
proposed ShastaStreet.
ZONE VARIANCES:
Evelyn D. Wdnninger, 576 Third Avenue, requested a variance to establish a real
estate office in an R-3 zone and to erect a sign on said property. The request was
submitted along with the snapshots showing the type of sign to be erected. A dis-
cussion followed as to parking area for the business and the request for erection of
a sign.
It was moved by Membek Young, seconded by Member Crosley, and unanimously
carried that the variance be granted for reasons stated in the application, dubject
to the sign being no larger than indicated in the application - 9110" x 3110", and
that access be provided to the area at the rear of the lot for parking purposes, and .
that the present setback be maintained,
James M. Bannister, et al, 551-575 Garrett, requested a variance to construct
and maintain a shopping center in an R-3 zone. The variance, if granted, would be an
extension of a previous variance granted to construct a retail store at the same
location. Also presented, a letter elaborating on their plans and artists sketches
and aerial photos. property owners in the vicinity were heard, and Firs. L. Aland,
Mr . C. M. Williams, and "Lr. W. C. Lucas all raised questions pertaining to the wall
the Bannister Company will construct. to protect the residences in that area. They
were concerned about the height of the wall and the appearance. Mr. Bannister
explained that the wall would be decorative and that landscaping would be provided
and maintained in the area between the wall and the property line so that it would
actually improve the view of the adjacent properties.
It was moved by Member Young, seconded by Member Crosley and unanimously
carried that the variance be granted for reasons stated in the application, with the
provisions that the wall be constructed as indicated, that adequate landscaping be
provided and maintained as per the rendering submitted with the application and that
this- construction and landscaping be shown on a drawing to be submitted to the
Planning Commission for approval when the building permit is applied for.
The meeting was recessed-R)r 5 minutes at 9:10 P.M.
John xdams, 609 Brightwood, requested a variance to construct a single family
dwelling on a lot undersized for an R-1 zone.
It was moved by Member Henninger, seconded by i'lember Young and unanimously
carried that the variance be granted for reasons stated in the application, for R-1
use and with an R-1 setback.
DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION:
The members of the Planning Commission expressed the opinion that a joint
meeting with the City Council was in order as there are several items that need
to be discussed between the City Council and .the Planning Commission. Each mem-
ber. of the Commission will prepare a list of subjects that he thinks should be
discussed at the proposed meeting, and submit them at the August 15 meeting of
the Planning Commission so that an agenda may be prepared and distributed before
the proposed meeting.
The Commission recommended that a letter be written to the City Council asking
for a joint meeting with the Planning Commission, and submitting the date of Monday,
August 22, 1955, at 7:30 P.M.
Chairman Raitt will be o#t of town for approximately three weeks on vacation,
and will not be present at the special meeting of August 15, 1955; however, he will
be in town for the 22nd of August, the proposed meeting date with the' City Council.
DISCUSSI(N
The balance of the meeting. was devoted to a discussion on a possible average
setback along Third Avenue.
ADJOURNMENT:
It was moved by Member .Menninger, seconded by Member Young and unanimously
carried that the meeting adjourn until Monday, August 15, 1955.
Audrey St U ehouse, Secretary