Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1956-01-09 PC MINS MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING C01114ISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Held January 9, 1956 The Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista met on the above date in the Council Chambers at Civic Center at 7:30 P.M. with the following members present: Members Shamrell, Raitt, Young, Crossley and Burford. Members absent: Hesse and Menzel. Also Present: City Planner Scherer, Principal Engineer Johnson, City Attorney Campbell. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was moved by Member Crossley, seconded by Member Burford and unanimously carried that the minutes of the meeting of December 5, 1955, be approved, copies having been mailed to each member. CORRESPONDENCE: Margaret Brown - 550 Fourth Avenue A letter from the applicant requesting that her property, which is split by a zone boundary into R-1 and R-3, be rezoned entirely to R-3. The letter was read and dis- cussed. Due to the wording of the letter there was some doubt as to whether Miss Brown owned all the land that she was requesting adjustment for. The members of the Planning Commission asked that Miss Brown write another letter clarifying that par- ticular point, before final action could be taken by them. George Kenworthy - 276 "K" Street A letter from Mr. Kenworthy was read asking for permission to reconstruct a presently existing counter which he is using to sell flowers to the neighborhood. The stand, along with his business of selling flowers, has been in constant use prior to and sub- sequent to the enactment of Ordinance #398. The stand has become delapidated during the years and is becoming an eyesore. Mr. Kenworthy would like to rebuild it so to be more attractive. He stated that he would use his new stand for about 18 months and then go out of business for good. City Attorney Campbell stated that the Planning Commission does not have authority to give permission to improve upon a non-conforming use except by zone variance. The Planning Commission directed that a letter be written to Mr. Kenworthy asking that he submit a zone variance for this request and at that time the Commission would consider it. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: Planning: Robert's. Glen - 735 First Avenue - Permission to Build on a Private Drive A letter and maps were presented to the Commission asking permission to build dwellings on an easement and/or a private drive, running through land at the rear of a lot .fronting on First Avenue. After some discussion, it was the concensus of opinion that the maps be held over until the next meeting to give the Planning Commission time to study the matter further. Subdivisions: Gretna Green (formerly Hilltop Park) - Final Map - 1 - Final Maps of the above subdivision were presented to the Commission along with the recommendations of the Department of Engineering. The recommendations of the committee from the Planning Commission were read. It was moved by Member Young, seconded by Member Shamrell and unanimously carried that the final map of Gretna Green be approved, as the subdivider had met with the recommenda- tions of the tentative map. Dalseth Hills #2, - Final Map Final maps of Dalseth Hills, Unit #2, were presented to the Planning Commission along with the recommendations of the Department of Engineering. The recommendations of the committee from the Planning Commission were read. It was moved by Member Young, seconded by Member Crossley and unanimously carried that the final maps of Dalseth Hills, Unit #2, be approved, as the subdivider had met with the requirements of the tentative map. Elysia - Final Map Final maps of Elysia were presented to the Planning Commission along with the recommen- dations. of the Department of Engineering. The recommendations of the committee from the Planning Commission were read. It was moved by Member Shamrell, seconded by Member Young, and unanimously carried that the final map of Elysia be approved, as all recommendations had been adhered to. C. L. Hart & Sons #1 - Tentative map The tentative maps of the above subdivision were presented to the Commission and a general discussion followed. Recommendations of the Department of Engineering were read along with the recommendations of the committee from the Planning Commission. Chairman Raitt explained the situation involved to the •members of the Commission not attending the field trip. It was the opinion of the Planning Commission that the sub- divisibn did not have adequate ingress and egress. It was noted that including this subdivision, the area would have approximately 40 houses with only one egress and ingress. Member Young stated that he felt that the only way to get additional egress or ingress would be to condemn property, not only in this instance, but in similar areas in the city. Engineer Johnson stated that there were no particular engineering problems to contend with. Chairman Raitt stated that he would like to have the matter held over so that they could discuss the situation with the Fire Chief. Mr. Johnson stated that he couldn't visualize 17 new houses making enough of a hazard to stop the subdivision of the land. Chairman Raitt stated that it had been the policy of the Planning Commission to try to obtain adequate egress and ingress for new subdivisions, to avoid land-locking adjacent areas. The Planning Commission members stated that the subdivision should be held over until the next meeting so that they would have time to study the situation . Variances: Frank G. Sandoval - 105 Madison Avenue The variance request along with the recommendation of the committee from the Planning CommissionTaere read. The applicant wishes to conduct a television and radio repair shop in his garage. It was the opinion that the variance should be denied because the use would be infringing upon a residential community. It has been the policy of the - 2 - Planning Commission in the past to deny commercialization of residential property. Two gentlemen from the audience objected to the variance being granted as theyfelt re- sidential property should be used for living only and that any business should be con- ducted in a business area. There was no one in the audience representing the Sandovals. It was moved by Member Burford, seconded by Member Young and unanimously carried that the variance be denied for the reason that the jurisdictional facts were not proved as required by ordinance. The secretary was directed to notify the Sandovals of the decision and inform them that they could appeal to the City Council if they so desire. Guy S. Moore - 445 First Avenue The variance application requesting permission to erect a 6' .fence on the front property line was read to the Commission and audience along with the recommendations of the com- mittee from the Planning Commission. It was the findings of the committee on their field trip, that the variance be denied, but that he could erect a 6' fence on his set- back line or a 42" fence on the property line as per ordinance. Mr. Moore explained his situation to the Planning Commission. His property is extremely wide and does not lend itself to building a fence on the setback line. lie stated that he had planted ornamental trees on the setback line which would all have to be destroyed' and that in his opinion this would be detrimental to the neighborhood rather than helpful, because it would leave a big blank strip. He stated all the neighbors would rather see him with a 6' fence on the property line rather than tear the beautiful trees out. Chairman Raitt stated that the Commission was not telling him he had to put a fence on the setback line, just that according to Ordinance #398, a 421, fence only is permitted on a property line. Mr. Moore stated that due to the depression of the street, a 42" fence would be useless. He stated that young people ignore his property line and use the land as an access way. Being young, they are inclined to vandalism which is serious -to his property. He feels that if he can put only a 42" fence on the front property line it would not protect his property from these acts of vandalism and tresspassing. The Planning Commission informed Mr. Moore that the depression in the street would be con- sidered in the height of the fence, but that they still.didn't feel the facts in the case waranted a 6' fence on the property line. It was moved by Member Young, seconded by Member Shamrell and unanimously carried that the variance be denied as the jurisdictional facts required by ordinance were not proved and that Mr. Moore be informed that he could appeal the decision to the City Council. Buford - Morgan, Inc. - 954 Hilltop Drive (Country Club Hills #r3) A variance application for a 1' reduction in the rear yard setback of the above property was read along with the redommendation of that committee that it be approved. It was moved by Member Shamrell, seconded by Member Young, and unanimously carried that the variance be granted for reasons stated in the application. W. C. Thompson - Northwest corner of Church and "K" A variance had been granted to Mr. Thompson on March 7, 1955, to build a professional building at this location with a 10' setback reduction'-on Church Street. The time limit had egpi.red before the applicant could complete this work. On September 93 1955, he was granted an extension of time but failed to ask that the 10' reduction of setback be granted him. The recommendation of the committee that the variance be granted for a 10' setback was read. It was moved by Member Young, seconded by Member Crossley and unanimously carried that - 3 - the variance be granted for reasons stated in the application with the condition that the applicant comply with all recommendations of the first two variances, which were that they provide sufficient parking for a commercial enterprise, and that the work be completed six months from the second variance, September 9, 1955• Bella Vista Heights #1 Lots 24 and 25 The D. E. 'Sparling Company requested that a letter referring to Lot #24 and Lot #25 be recorded under Bella Vista Heights #1. It was discovered that when residences were located on Lots 24 and 25 that on lot 25, the placement of the residence had left only a 1.4' side yard, rather than the 5' as required by Ordinance #398. In order to eliminate a revision of the final map, the subdivider had deeded all lot from lot 24 to lot 25, thereby increasing lot 25 by 1' so that the required 5' side .yard could be maintained. The letter referring to this deed is on file in the office of the Planning Commission. PUBLIC HEARING - Rezoning of Broadway area Chairman Raitt declared the continued public hearing open. Lists showing uses allowed in commercial and industrial zones were distributed and Chairman Raitt asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak either in protest or in favor of the proposed changes. Mr. Ed Culnan, 644 "G" Street, stated that he had been told that the Commission had con- sidered a plan for making the Broadway area .a 0-3 zone and that they had thrown it out already. Chairman Raitt stated that nothing had been thrown out, that a C-3 zone would be considered, but that nothing had been decided. Mr. Culnan feels that the Planning Commission is getting ahead of itself- in zoning more land for industry. He feels that as there has been some talk in developing and using the tidelands for indus- try and that this would be preferable- to using our agricultural land. He stated that Rohr Aircraft and Tyce Engineering are rumoured to be expanding and that that is enough industry for Chula Vista. If the tidelands are used and Rohr expands, the area between Broadway and the Freeway will be needed for R-3 dwellings, as it now stands. He feels that the rezoning will hurt prices, but that he doesn't want to sell anyway, just live where he is. He feels that if we want to have industry, that in the near future we should annex to the south and that that land could be used for industry. Mr. Wallace Miller, property owner at "H!'. and Broadway, stated he would like to see the rezoning go through as he has lots 12, 13, 14 and 15 on "H" Street east of Broadway. Two of the lots are in a commercial zone and two in a residential zone, and he wishes them to all be commercial. Chairman Raitt stated that if the lots haven't been rezoned by the time he is ready to use them, they can handle it through a zone variance. Mr. C. C. Alley, 700 Third Avenue, stated that he feels that Mr. Culnan is wrong, that now is the time we need industrial land. He stated that 90% of the M-2 land across the Freeway is owned by the railroad company and that it will be put into heavy industry sometime in the future. The balance of the land between the Freeway and Broadway should be zoned to M-1 and the sooner the better. As far as prices, he feels that M-1 land will bring higher prices than R-1 or R-3 in that area. Up until 4 or 5 years ago the land was zoned M-1 but was put into R-3 for the urgent need of Rohr Aircraft, but that nnw it should revert to M-1. Throughout the state, industrial land goes for 32'000 dollars an acre, R-1 for six thousand. A lot of industry wants to come south now, and they will come if they are offered industrial land in a reasonable length of time. Chairman Raitt asked if the people objecting were objecting to the uses allowed in an -1 zone or to the zone as a whole. Mr. Culnan stated that they are objecting to re- zoning the land for any kind of business, they want it to stay R-3. - 4 - Chairman Raitt declared the public hearing closed after there were no -further comments 1 JPfrom the audience. He asked if the co!nmi.ssioners thought it would be agreeable to meet ` with the Broadway Association, to get their views, as the matter concerned them greatly. The members all agreed and Chairman Raitt will notify the members when a date has been set for a meeting. He explained to the audience, that the public hearings were closed. They hadn't decided what recommendation they would send to the Council. The Council upon receiving the recommendation, could either hold public hearings (at which time pro- tests would be heard) or if they choose, table the matter indefinitely. At any rate, before final action could be taken, there would be public hearings:. Mr. Culnan stated that he would:'-like to be notified when the next action would take place. Resolution #61 - Planning Commission policy in reference to verbal opinions. Planning Commission Resolution #61, requiring any opinions or clarifications asked of the commission, to be in writing was read. A general discussion followed and it was the concensus of opinion that the resolution should be rewritten by the City Attorney to further define the policy of the Planning Commission. DISCUSSION: A short discussion ensued concerning changing Third Avenue Extension to Third Avenue and Third Avenue north of the intersection of the present Extension to Sea Vale .Street. A letter from the Third Avenue Downtown Association was received and read giving approval.. It was noted, from letters received, that all property owners• in that area approve the name change. Resolution #48 - Resolution of Intention to Initiate a Street Name Change Offered by Member Young, read in full, passed, adopted and approved by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Shamrell, Young, Raitt, Crossley and Burford NOES: None ABSENT: Members Hesse and Menzel Chairman Raitt instructed that a public hearing be held on the street name change at the meeting of January 23, and that the secretary prepare a public notice of same. ADJOURNMENT: It was moved by Member Crossley., seconded by Member Burford and unanimously carried that the meeting adjourn until January 23, 1956. Respectfully submitted, udrey St 'nehouse, z5ecretary c