Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1955-09-06 PC MINS MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Held Tuesday, September 6, 1955 The Chula Vista Planning Commission ret in the Council Chambers at Civic Center at 7:30 P.M. on the above date with the following members present: Raitt, Young, Crosley, Shamrell and Hesse. Absent: Members -Henninger and Burford. Also Present: City Planner Scherer, City Attorney Campbell. Chairman Raitt presided over the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was moved by Member Young, seconded by Member Crosley and unanimously carried, that the minutes of the meeting of August 15th„ 1955, be approved, copies having been mailed to each member. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Proposed Purchase of Bank of America Parking Lot Mr. David Phair, representing the Downtown Third Avenue Association spoke, outlining the reasons the businessmen on Third Avenue fdlt that the City should purchase the parking lot in question. They felt that in the past the City had not been properly' planned so as to provide sufficient parking space for the anticipated commercial growth of the City. They feel that parking areas should be provided by the City, funds for these parking lots to be derived from the parking meters. Their opinion is that it is impossible for individual businessmen to provide parking for their customers as there is no space left for such a purpose. The Association feels that on this par- ticular parking lot, the mortgage could be paid by leaving the two rentals on the ex- --M isting piece of property directly across the street, and that over a period of ten years the mortgage could be paid from income on these buildings. Mr. Phair introduced his landlord, Dr. Griffith, who no longer lives in the City, but still has an interest in it through the property he owns. Dr. Griffith stated that he was the author of "Chula Vista Plans Tomorrow", published in 1944, which discussed, future parking needs in Chula Vista. He feels that Chula Vista in general, and Third Avenue in particular, is suffering -from lack of proper planning :when the City was first planned. He thinks the City should provide the parking for this reason: it is impossi- ble for a built-up area such as Third Avenue, to provide parking, due to the prohibitive cost of land and the inability of property owners to agree as to how much each shall give. Dr. Griffith reported that a survey made some time ago by responsible persons, that the City receives $$96,370.00 each year from sales tax and that of this figure, approximately 70% came from the Third Avenue shopping district. There was considerable discussion among the Commissiorers and with the audience, then Member Young moved, Member Hesse seconded thati they_-.recommend;.tq Council that the City not purchase this parking space because from surveys made, the parking problem does not warrant additional parking space, and because it would not be fair to force new business to provide off-street parking and then to provide parking space to benefit existing businesses along Third Avenue. The motion was passed with the following vote, to-wit: - 1 - L AYES: Young, Raitt, Crosley and Hesse NOES: Shamrell ABSENT: Henninger, Burford Setback and Sidewalks widths on Third Avenue After considerable discussion, the Planning Commission directed the City Planner to prepare a resolution amending the existing ordinance and to set the date for a public hearing for such amendment, the date agreed on to be October 3rd; 1955• It was recommended that the resolution include the following: "To amend the Building Line Map, establishing a minimum building line of five (5) feet on both sides of Third Avenue, east and west of the established right-of-way from Roosevelt Street on the west and Alvarado Street on the east to the centerline of 11K11 Street on the south." It is also recommended that a letter be sent to the Building Department and the Depart- ment of Public Works regarding a policy establishing 1V. sidewalk width for all new commercial properties. Setback on Delmar Avenue in the 600 Block Mr. Keith Hall, acting as spokesman for the residents on Del Mar Avenue, stated that this neighborhood is one of the oldest neighborhoods in the City and the original houses were built with a 501 setback as a deed restriction. The present ordinance now allows a 301 setback as the deed restrictions are ho longer in effect. The residents request that the setback of 501 be re-established so that no new properties may be built with a 301 setback, thereby not conforming with the houses now existing. The Planning Commission felt that the residents were justified in their request and directed the City Planner to include the following in amending the City Ordinance for the Third Avenue setback: That a 501 setback be established on Del Mar Avenue between "I" and "Ju Streets. PUBLIC HEARING: - Changing Third Avenue Extension to Memorial Drive Planning Commission Resolution #55 was read, changing the name of Third Avenue Extension to Memorial Drive, and the public hearing declared open. - Mr. Herb Davies, owner of the Chula Vista Florists objected to the name of Memorial Drive. He would like it changed to something more appropriate for a business street' and that the numbering system be changed to eliminate the confusion now existing because of the deflection. Mr. Sylvester, Manager of the Department of Motor Vehicles, agreed that the existing street numbers were confusing and added that he would just as soon leave the name as it is or drop the "Extension". He stated that Third Avenue only extended 2001 past the fork and that using low numbers and calling it Third Avenue, it would designate a certain part of the City, which would be easily recognizable. A representative from' the Chula Vista Junior Woman's Club spoke in reply to the above objections saying that the name Memorial Drive had been approved by the City Council in 1952 when they had requested that "E11 Street be dedicated as the entrance to the City but no official action was taken to affect the change. Due to some difficulties on "E91 Street, the Council offered Third Avenue Extension as a substitute, and the Woman's Club proceeded with their plans of beautifying it with the planting of palm trees. These trees were donated by various citizens with the understanding that they - 2 - would be used as a living memorial to service men who gave their lives in World War II. For these reasons, the Chula Vista Junior Woman's Club felt that it should be changed to Memorial Drive. Chairman Raitt felt that the ladies had worked hard for a purpose and they should be given their choice of names. He felt that the good accomplished overcomes the bad so far as the City is concerned. Member Young moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the resolution prepared be accepted and the necessary public hearing and readings be held. It was seconded by Member Crosley and unanimously carried. \ ZONING: Stafford-Gardner - 865 Boradway (L Street and Sierra Way) The variance request was presented to the Commission along with a plot plan showing what the applicants were requesting. The Commission felt that the variance should be granted only for that portion of land directly to the rear of the mortuary. If they granted a variance for all the land requested, any M-1 business would be permitted. The Commission felt that to grant a zone variance for use, they had to have a "specific use" in order torrake a decision. When business in this area is established then a "use variance" could be applied for. Member Shamrell moved, Member Young seconded and it was unanimously carried that the variance be granted with the following conditions: That the variance apply only to that portion to the rear of the mortuary; That the alley be paved to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works; That future development of the entire remaining undeveloped land (south of the mortuary) be submitted for recommendation to the Planning for their consideration; That adequate off-street parking be provided for future development. SUBDIVISIONS Tentative Map - Shaffer Court - Glover and Flower The maps of.Shaffer Subdivision were submitted and the recommendation of the 1'ngineering Department read. The Planning Commission felt that there should ,be access to Fourth Avenue and that the subdividers should dedicate one-half street. After considerable discussion in which the subdivider and Commission made recommendations but could not agree,' the maps were held over until the mext Planning Commission meeting to enable the subdivider to attempt to work out another reasonable solution satisfactory to the Planning Commission. Final Map - Country Club Hills ##3 The representatives of Country Club Hills #3 presented the maps and the Department of Planning approved the plat as submitted. They had met all requirements as stipulated on the tentative map. It was moved by Member Grosley;,rseconded by Member Shamrell and unanimously carried that the final be approved and recommended to the City Council for final action. VARIANCES: - 3 - Use Dr. Carl and Rae G. Hoffman, et al - Southwest corner of "F" and Twin Oaks The variance requesting permission to construct a professional building in an R-3 zone, was read and discussed. It was moved by Member Young, seconded by Member Shamrell and unanimously carried that the variance be granted subject to the following conditions: Adequate off-street parking be provided, suggested amount - 1 space for each 300 square feet of gross floor area; That no advertising sign larger than 5 square feet be displayed (flood lights permitted); That a 10' setback on "Twin Oaks and 15' setback on "F" Street be main- tained; That no residential use be permitted in the building. H. E. and Velma Garrett -681 "I" Street The application requesting permission to sell trailers in an R-3 zone, and to erect a sign was read and discussed. Mr. Al Boyer, attorney for the applicants, presented their case. He stated that at the time the trailer park was established, no setback was required nor zone restrictions. They propose to remove two trailers in the front of their property and to utilize that space for the display of 'new trailers for sale. They are asking for permission to erect a sign 3' x 81 , unilluminated, and a 25' area to be used for a sales -,yard. The sales would be incidental to a business established before the area was zoned. The Garrett property is bounded on the west by an elementary school, on the north by a vacant lot which is undesirable.';_due to the limited depth and the inaccessibility for residential purposes. The only property that might be effected is on the east which is developed into single family residences but the owners knew of the trailer park when they purchased their property and up to this time, have not objected. The use is compatible with the amount of ground left for development. Mr. Elmore, representing a portion of the property owners in the neighborhood objected to the use variance. The resident3s reasons for objecting are an increase in traffic; the school being located where it is makes a trailer park undesirable; and that a resi- dential neighborhood is not the place for trailer sales, that there are other areas available such as Broadway for that use. He reported that when they purchased their properties they were told the trailer court was a temporary business. The residents feel that if he is granted a C-2 use there will be nothing to prevent further infringement. Mr. Clarence Benbow, a property owner, objected to the C-,�,2 use. He feels that the Garretts are capitalizing on the location of the school and the resulting traffic for sales. Mr. Pressler, property owner, objected to the C-2 use because of the children. If the Garretts get a zone variance it will automatically increase the traffic. They do not want more businesses for the reason that it will be a hazard for the children. Mr. Dean, from the audience stated that the attorney for the Garretts claimed that by puttingtrailers sales in it would enhance the value of the properties. Mr. Dean disagreed with this theory. Mr. Elmore asked why he should be held to a 25' setback on "I" Street and the trailer park could have a "O" setback. It was explained that the setback was in use before the present zoning ordinance was affected. -4- Mr. Boyer stated that the main objections by the neighbors seemed to be a traffic problem. He further. stated that it would not increase traffic. They only plan to have three trailers on display at a time and if Mr. Garrett had six people a day look at trailers he would feel very fortunate. That even six cars could not increase traffic appreciably. He felt that if it had been an actual traffic hazard, the school would have objected. They did not. Chairman Raitt stated he had not heard anything from the objectors that actually con- stituted a legitimate objection, nor had he heard anything from the applicants that constituted a reason for obtaining a variance. He felt that the Planning Commission should not be put in a position that they had to make a decision at this time. Something is going to have to be done about zoning in that area in any event, and he would rather wait until that is settled. If the area was zoned commercial, the Garretts would be in a position to get the variance. However, if the area stayed a residential one, they would have a harder time getting the variance. Mr. Raitt asked that the matter be tabled until the November 7th meeting, giving the Commission time to decide how the area in question was going to be zoned. He asked the applicants to appear again at the meeting on November 7th. Member Young moved that the variance be denied with no provision for it coming before the Commission a second time. The motion was not seconded. Member Hesse made a motion that the Commission withhold judgement for 60 days until such time as a decision as to the eventual zoning may be reached. It was seconded by Member Shamrell and unanimously carried. Ralph R Giddings and James D. Hartley - 575 Third Avenue The applicants requested a zone variance to construct a professional office building at the above address. The present zone is R-3. After a discussion, Member Young moved, Member Crosley seconded, and it was unanimously carried that the variance be granted for reasons stated in the application subject to the following conditions: That adequate off-street parking be provided (suggested amount, 1 space for each 300 square feet of gross floor area); That no advertising sign larger than 5 square feet be displayed (flood lights permitted); That a 5' setback be maintained on Third Avenue; That no residential use be permitted in the building. Harry E. Banner - 737 Third Avenue The applicant requested a zone variance to allow the conversion of an existing residence into a real estate office, in an R-3 zone. After some discussion by the Planning Com- mission, it was moved by Member Crosley, seconded by Member Young and unanimously carried that the variance be granted for reasons stated in the application subject to the follow- ing conditions: No signs be displayed other than those approved by the Deparbment of Planning and the Building Department; (Suggested area and height limit: total surface area not to exceed 319" x 101911 inclusive of supports, and 4'3" high inclusive of supports) That off-street parking for at least S cars be provided on dustless surface; That a 5' setback be maintained on Third Avenue. Benjamin and Edna Hammer - 350-360 Bay Boulevard Mr. Nottbush Senior, attorney for the applicants stated he did not feel it had been necessary for the Hammers to submit an application for zone variance. Ordinance #424 says a junk yard, salvage operation, may be carried on in the M-2 zone' if certain - 5 - regulations are complied with. Mr. Nottbush read letters from adjacent businesses and those who dealt with Mr. Hammer, giving their approval of the proposed use. Mr. Merideth Campbell, City Attorney, was asked for an opinion of Ordinance #424. He inferred that operations such as Mr. Hammers were legal and stated that his inter- pretation was than these uses were permitted. That only under Ordinance #398 would the applicant have to apply for variances if they violated Section 123 A, 3, but as long as they complied with Ordinance #424 regarding fumes, aisles, etc., they could continue their present operation. Mr. Nottbush stated his applicants will comply with the ordinance (#424) and that they would like to withdraw the application for variance. Letters from two neighbors protesting the use were read. One from South Bay Veterinary Hospital, Dr. Harlan Case and the other from Mr. Emmett Kaul. It was moved by Member Young, seconded by Member Crosley and unanimously carried that no action be taken and that the City Planner write a letter to the Finance Officer re- questing that Mr. Hammer be refunded $25.00 (the additional $10.00 was used to cover the cost of advertising the variance request). Member Young recommended that the City Planner discuss with the Chief Administrative Officer the interpretation of the Section 1 of Ordinance #424 in order to clarify the wording of the section so that the Planning Commission and the public in general would be made cognizant of just what type of business is or is not allowed in the M-1 and Iii-2 zones. The Commission recessed at 10:25 P.M. for ten minutes. Henry and Ruth Bishop - 577-"H" Street The applicants requested a zone variance to allow manufacture of printers forms in a residential area. Mr. Herman Smetting from the audience asked the question as to what would happen if the machinery which was to be used interfered with television reception in the area. Mr. Raitt stated that the Commission felt it would not interfere, but that this problem could be solved by means of a transformer to the machine. It was moved by Member Young, seconded by Member Crosley and unanimously carried that the variance be granted for reasons stated in the application and subject to the fol- lowing conditions: That no skilled or unskilled labor be employed other than the immediate family; That no advertising of any nature be displayed externally. That no more than 2 saws, one 211 and one 5" be used; That no excessive storage of material, any storage to be under cover or hidden by suitable fence; No commercial vehicle be stored on the premises other than for pickup or delivery; That this variance be granted for 24 months with no additional time extended; The equipment be operated only from 9:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M.; A television Isiltap (or similar appliance) be installed on the saws. Ralph Riley - 562 Vance The applicant requested a zone variance to permit the construction of an apartment unit over a garage. Mr. Riley submitted plans of the proposed construction and after some discussion by the Planning Commission it was moved by Mmmber Young, seconded by Member Crosley and unanimously carried, that the variance be granted,f reasons stated in the application and subject to the conditions following: That the applicant be required to provide off-street parking space for all dwelling units, to submit plans to Building Department and Planning Commission before a permit is obtained; That the applicant pro- tect the dwelling above the garage from odor and noise. - 6 - Thomas Dines - 155 Madrona The applicant requested a zone variance to subdivide his lot, leaving an area less that the 73000 square .feet, as required by Ordinance #398 in an R-1 zone. Mr. Dines was asked why he started work on the project before getting the decision of the Planning Commission. He stated that he did not do any construction, just wrecking that had to be done in any event, and that due to some free time and help over the preceeding week-end, he had gone ahead. It was moved by Member Young, seconded by Member Hesse, and unanimously carried that the variance be granted for reasons stated in the application and subject to the fol- lowing conditions: That adequate off-street parking be provided; That no reduction in setback be permitted if and when additions are made to the existing residences. Roscoe and Cora Phillips - 135 "G" Street The applicants requested a zone variance to construct an enclosed patio, with 110" side yard and 9' height limitation. The Planning Commission noted that the patio was already built and that in essence the applicants were attempting to legalize his non-conforming patio with the ordinance. \Mr. Raitt asked the gentleman to define patio, as his shelter is completely enclosed. The applicant was at a loss to define his structure. The Planning Commission recommended that this flaunting of the rules and regulations of the City must cease and that the time was coming when the Planning Commission would not legalize these infringements. It was moved by Member Crosley, seconded by Member Shamrell and unanimously carried that the variance be granted subject to the following conditions: That -the patio not exceed the 9'in height; That a "0" setback be maintained on the sideyard. Florence Rehfeld' - Fifth and Flower Miss Rehfeld was granted a variance in August, 1952, to reduce the required setback on Fifth Avenue from 30' to 20' and on Flower from 30' to 151 . Miss Rehfeld did not complete the construction in the six months time allowed and a letter was read to the Commission asking for a time extension on the previous granted variance. It was moved by Member Young, seconded by Member Crosley and unanimously carried that the time extension be granted subject to the following conditions: That the applicant construct curb and sidewalks on Fifth and Flower Streets; That adequate off-street parking be provided and that this time extension be granted until August, 1956, with no additional time allowed. Winfield C. Thompson - Northwest corner of Church and "K" Street - Mr. Thompson had been -granted a use variance to construct a professional building in March, 1955, and has bden unable to complete the work before the allotted six months. He requested an extension of the time limit to complete this work. It was moved by Member Crosley, seconded by Member Hesse and unanimously carried that the request be granted subject to the following conditions: That the setback on "K" Street and on Church Street be maintained; That adequate parking space be provided for commercial enterprises. DISCUSSION - Area of City for first re-zoning The Planning Commission decided to go ahead with rezoning of the City, where needed, starting on Third Avenue. The City Planner explained the procedure for determining - 7 - zone boundaries. A general discussion followed regarding the extent of the rezoning of that portion of Third Avenue between "H" and "I" Streets on the east side of Third Avenue. The area, in general, is now residential. It was undecided how ddep the com- mercial zone should extend. It was the general opinion of the Commission that they rezone the entire- frontage along Third to a depth of one lot in that particular block. At the time of the public hearing some adjustments can be made if the property owners so desire. No commercial uses to face Shasta or Whitney. The entrance to any commercial area would have to be from' Third Avenue. It was also. agreed that the Commission do not attempt to rezone the land between "K" and "L" Streets. It was undecided whether to rezone it C-1 or C-2 and it was the opinion of the members that they should wait until some indi- cation was shown as to what that particular section should be zoned. It was moved by Member Hesse, seconded by Member Shamrell and unanimously carried that a Resolution of Intention be prepared by the City Planner and that a public hearing be set for October 3rd, 1955, at 8:00 P.M. for the rezoning of Third Avenue from Roosevelt Street on the west and Alvarado on the east to "K" Street on the south, from R-3 to C-1. Zone Variance Application The City Planner had prepared a revised Zone Variance Application, incorporating the ideas from an opinion from the City Attorney, which would be more restrictive as to just what the Commission was granting in a zone variance. The application was approved as written and the City Planner directed to use it rather than the one formerly used. Vacation of Mankato A discussion.was held on the vacation of Mankato Street. A letter was read from the J. M. Banister Corporation requesting the City Planning Commission to vacate that portion of Mankato Street extended from Third Avenue to Garrett. The older members of the Commission stated that they had reviewed the problem dubsequent to the appointment of the new members, but that in fairness to all the decision should be delayed until September 19th meeting in order that the new members would have time to study the proposed vacation. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Member Shamrell, seconded by Member Hesse and unanimously carried that the meeting adjourn until September 19th, 1955• Audrey Tehouse, becretary 8