Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1956-02-20 PC MINS i~ MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE �� 6 CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Held February 20,1956 The Regular Adjourned meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista was held on the above date at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center with the following members present: Young, Raitt, Burford and Hesse. Absent: Shamrell, Crossley and Menzel. Also Present: City Planner Scherer, Principal Engineer Johnson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was moved by Member Young, seconded by Member Burford and unanimously carried that the minutes of the meeting of February 6 be approved, copies having been mailed to each member. CORRESPONDENCE: Parking for Recreation Area - Chamber of Commerce A letter from the Chamber of Commerce referred to the Planning Commission from the City Council was read to the Commission asking that Madrona Street be improved between Third and Fourth to provide more'. parking and better access to the Youth Center, Gymnasium and Swimming Pool. After a general discussion it'-was the opinion of the Planning Commission that this matter be held over until the next meeting to give the Planning Commission an opportunity to.view the location on their next field trip. Small Craft Harbors - County Planning Commission A letter from the -County Planning Commission asking Chula Vista's participation in a County Master P1an. for Small Craft Harbors, was read to the Commission and public. The members of the Commission asked that the letter be referred to the Harbor Commission as it appears to be a matter within their jurisdiction. Proposed Closing of Elm Street - William Burke A letter was read from Mr. Burke asking that the City consider the closing of the .,west half of Elm Street adjacent to his property at 154 Madrona. it was stated that his property would be the only property affected by the closing of what is actually . an alley. Member Hesse stated that he would rather no.t make any decisions until he had a chance to look at the street. The other members of the Planning Commission concurred with him and the natter was held over until the next meeting. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: J. M. Banister Company - Mankato and Third Chairman Raitt presented to the Commission a "Proposed Improvement Plan for Mankato Street". The sketch was evolved after much study @md deliberation of the interested parties. The plan provides for the installation, by the Banister Company, of approx- imately 30 feet of AC pavement, .from the intersection of Garrett Street to Third Avenue; an 8 foot sidewalk on the north side of Mankato from the intersection of Garrett Street eastward for a distance of approximately 130 feet; installation of curb and gutter on the north side of Mankato, from the intersection of Garrett Street to Third Avenue; elimination of curb and gutter and sidewalk on the south side of -1 - of NIankato Street, but that the street right-of-way to be sufficiently delineated from the .-parking area so as not to confuse the two; that in the event the city or the J. M. Banister Company acquires a 5' strip along the southerly boundary of the M. R. Jones' property or all of the Jones' property, the J. M. Banister Company will install a 5' sidewalk from the limits of the Banister property to the intersection of Third Avenue, along the north side of Mankato Street; that the Banister Company furnish a bond of '8,000.00 as per cost estimates by the Department of Engineering, for a period of two years, and that the bond which the city now has be returned to them. The city would return to the J. M. Banister Company that parcel of land, approx- imately 22' x 1801 , as indicated on the plan; but the city would retain an 81 x 130' (approximately) parcel for sidewalk purposes. Chairman Raitt asked if the audience had anything to say. NIrs. Lyle Aland, Mr. Lucas and Mr. Hal Rader voiced their objections. Mr. riader acted as the spokesman for the group. The questions which were raised are as follows: 1. Why could not the J. M. Banister Company improve a full 60' street? 2. Why should they not be required to install a sidewalk on the south side of Mankato together with one on the north? 3. `How was the street to be separated from the parking area on the south side of Mankato; if no sidewalk or curb were to be required? 4. Why was a 30' pavement wide enough? Mr.. Hal Rader suggested that the J. M. Banister Company dedicate and improve a full width street even if they had to' dedicate a 30' parcel south of the existing right- of-way for Mankato Street. He suggested that since the Banister Company would be unwilling to do this was it possible that the might install a full width street if they acquired the Jones property at a later date? Mr. Rader suggested that it would be better to require the Banister Company to live up to the conditions of their variance which requires the dedication and improvement of a 30' parcel of ground from the inter- section of Garrett Street eastward for a distance of approximately 180 feet, and no improvement of the remaining portion of Mankato Street to Third Avenue. He also stated that the city, by condemnation proceedings, acquire the balance of the land necessary for the completion of the street, and it was the city' s responsibility to do this. The Planning Commission answered the above questions as follows: 1. Because they do not own the ground necessary to complete a full width street. 2. Because it would be more hazardous for the pedestrian to use a sidewalk with so many curb cuts in it, and would serve no useful purpose. 3. The J. M. Banister Company would artificially create thi;p barrier, as shown on their artist's sketches. 4. The Police Department, the Department of Engineering and the Department of Planning assured the public that a 30' pavement would be equal to a 46' pavement because no parking would be allowed. On a 46' pavement 18' of it is generally reserved for parking lanes, leaving only 281 ,of useable roadway. Mr. Rader stated that he felt only 10% of the traffic on this street would b e through traffic and the balance would be traffic to and from the shopping center. The Planning Com- mission agreed with this. Member Hesse asked if any of the objectors had any suggestions to offer other than have been previously discussed. Chairman Raitt summed up the discussion as follows: 1. The City Council may either accept the plan as now proposed, or 2 _ 2. Require the J. M. Banister Company to adhere to the original zone variance and the city assume the responsibility for the completion of the street. It was moved by Member Burford, seconded by Member Young and unanimously carried that the Planning Commission forward to the City Council the plan (dated February 16, 1956) and recommendations outlined above. Approval of Church Site - Charles and Odessa Borden A letter from Mr Charles and Mrs. Odessa Borden was read asking that their letter of January 13 be withdrawn. The letter referred to asked for permission to hold church services in their home at 681 Del har. The Planning Commission agreed to withdraw the letter. Appeal of Planning Commission Action - Sam Shapov At the February 6th, 1956, meeting of the Planning Commission a variance was granted to Mr. Sam Shapov for construction of a business building in an R-1 zone. The condition that the applicant pave to the centerline of "C" Street was appealed to the City Council. Mr. Shapov's appeal was read to the Commission and then the findings of the Commission as prepared by the, City Planner. It was moved by Member Hesse, seconded by Member Burford and unanimously carried that the findings as prepared by the City Planner be sent to the City Council for their action. DISCUSSION: Proposed annexation of Vista Sanitarium Maps were presented to the Commission by Mr. Peter DeGraaf, representing the Community Relations Committee, pertaining to the proposed annexation of the Vista Sanitarium properties located north of "C" Street near to Second Avenue. The Planning Commission tentatively approved the area to be annexed and stated that final- approval could not be given until the matter has been approved by the County Boundary Commission. Member l'lenzel arrived at 10:00 P.M. Proposed Parking Ordinance: A short discussion was held on the need for a parking ordinance of some nature to be used until such time as something better could be put into effect. Chairman Raitt asked T''iember Hesse to contact the members of the committee appointed to study this situation and ask 'them to attempt to bring information to a Planning Commission meeting in the very near future. Mr. Ray Ponsor of the Downtown Association asked to be notified of that meeting so that he could be present. Miscellaneous: - Proposed ordinances which have been held over for further study The commission discussed the various proposed ordinances and set up a priority schedule for recommendation to the City Council. The City Planner presented copies of a proposed parking study to be used in Chula Vista, and explained its purpose and future use. -3 - Member Burford moved; Member Menzel seconded and it was carried unanimouslythat Mr. Scherer be given authority to continue a parking survey through the city in the C-1. 0-2 zones and down to "K" Street on Third Avenue. ADJOURNPT,UENT t It was moved by Member Young., seconded by Member Burford and unanimously carried that the meeting adjourn, sine die. Respectfully submitted, OLS• ?� J D.R. Scherer City Planner as