Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1957-08-19 PC MINS MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA August 19, 1957 The regular adjourned meeting of the .Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista was held on the above date in the Council Chambers at Civic Center, with the following members present:° King, Armstrong, Menzel, Crossley, Stewart and Axelson. Absent: Member Calkins. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was moved by Member Axelson, seconded by Member Stewart and carried that the minutes of the meeting of August 5th be approved subject to an amendment to include the follow- ing statement in the matter of the "E" Street rezoning, to be inserted prior to the second motion made. "The legal Counsel ruled that because three votes cannot carry a motion, an .affirmative motion should be made." PUBLIC HEARING - Proposed Rezoning of South Side of "H'.1, West of Fourth Chairman Menzel opened the public hearing, asking for a map representing the area re- quested for rezoning from R-2 to R-3 and asking for the reading of the petition for same. Mr. Leone spoke stating that they wish to develop the property ab R-3, with single story., 1 bedroom units. Protests were heard from Mr. A. W. Porter, 524 Guava, Mr. Wm. Hoff, 425 Shasta, Walter Alcaraz, 411 Shasta and Charles McKenna, 537 Guava, to the affect that they felt the neighborhood should remain as .is or should be zoned R-1 to conform with the actual development. Member Axelson stated that after investigating the situation, because the Leone property is the only one not developed completely, he feels the subj.ect should be approached, if atall, from a zone variance standpoint, rather than a zone change. He also stated that the city is in the process now of studying the ultimate land use of the Vista Square Housing Area and because of its proximity to the property in question feels that no change should be ,made until that issue .is resolved. Member, Stewart moved that because he feels this rezoning would be spot zoning whi6.h is against the principles of planning and because of the study now being made on this Vista Square Housing Project, that the application for rezoning be denied. Member Crossley seconded the motion and it was unanimously carried. Chairman Menzel explained to Mr. Leone that,the decision could be appealed to City Council. PUBLIC HEARING -Proposed Rezoning on the' North Side of Montebello, East of Second Chairman Menzel opened the hearing and asked that the petition for rezoning be read. The map showing the area proposed for rezoning from R-1 to R-3 was presented. A petition signed by 112 persons, protesting the rezoning was read into the records. Mr. Gerald Bendridkson, 160 Montebello, spoke stating that he is speaking for others and they protest the granting of the zone change because they feel it should remain R-1 as a protection to the better-than-average homes surrounding the area. Mr.Robert Fuson, It was moved by Member Stewart, seconded by Member Calkins and unanimously carried that the property in question be exempt from installing public improvements as required by Ordinance No. 543, as the Planning Commission finds, from information from the Engineering Department, that it would be extremely impractical at this time, JUDSON RESERVOIR ANNEXATION No action taken as letter of approval from the San Diego County Boundary Commission not yet received. "E" STREET REZONING Chairman Menzel, reiterating that the public hearing had been closed at the July 15th meeting, asked for any comments from the members of the Commission. Member Axelson asked to be excused as he was not eligible for voting. Member Stewart stated that he felt the situation had not changed since the Commission had made their first decision and he read into the record findings on which he would base his decision. 111. That there is at present a large area of property in Chula Vista zoned for com- mercial use which is still in residential use. This would indicate that at the present time Chula Vista does not need additional commercially zoned property, 2. That "Ell Street is the northernmost connection to Montgomery Freeway and carries a heavy load of traffic both to Chula Vista and the back country to the easto That this heavy traffic demand on the street and the fact that alleys are not avail- able to the property fronting on "E" Street without costly condemnation proceedings, so that truck deliveries must be made from the front and customer parking in -front, would further interfere with the heavy traffic on this street. : 3. That probably some of the owners of the property fronting on "E" Street would realize some gain in property value. 4. That all the owners of property on the side streets not rezoned would undoubtedly suffer a deterioration in property value for a distance of several hundred feet from "E" Street. 5. That a large amount of the property on the south side of "E" Street carries a deed restriction which prohibits commercial use for a period of several years. 6. That Section 17 .D of the Zoning Ordinance states that., "If, from the facts presented, the Commission finds that public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice, requires the change or reclassification involved in or any portion therefore, the Commission may recommend such change to the Council." 7. That the question of rezoning "E" Street for .commercial use fails to meet the test of Section 17.D in that the public necessity does not exist since plenty of commer- cially zoned property is available, public convenience will not be increased, but instead a public inconvenience would be created by congesting traffic in the area; therefore the change would be contrary to the public welfare, and incompatible with good zoning practice for all the reasons stated above4" Member King stated that he feels the Commission should also consider the wishes of the property owners on "El' Street and that if it must come, it should be now instead of latero 2 Acting City Attorney Boyer ruled that the Planning Commission must take action, either finding that public necessity, convenience, general welfare, etc., require proposed change or that they do not require such change. Member Stewart moved that inasmuch as the public necessity, convenience, genEral welfare, sound city or good zoning practice, do not require proposed change, that for the reasons in his statement above, the application for rezoning be denied. The motion failed to carry by the following vote, to-wit: AYES:- Members Menzel, Crossley and Stewart NOES: Members King and Calkins ABSIN T: Member Armstrong TT VOTING: Member Axelson Member King moved that inasmuch as public necessity, convenience, general welfare, etc., require that "E" Street between Fourth Avenue and Broadway be rezoned from R-1 and R-3 to C-2, that such change be recommended to City Council. The motion failed to carry by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members King and Calkins NOES: Members Menzel,Crossley and Stewart ABSENT: Member Armstrong NOT VOTING: Member Axelson Attorney Boyer ruled that no further action could be taken and that the recommendation shall not go to the City Council until and unless_ the Planning Commission action is appealed to the City Council within 20 days by one of the proponents for rezoning. RESOLUTION NO. 95 - Recommending to City Council Adoption of the Mohr-Adans-Plourde Plan for Harbor Development Offered by Member Calkins, passed, adopted and approved by the following vote; to-wit:- AYES: Members King, Calkins, Menzel, Crossley, Stewart and Axelson NOES: none ABSENT: Member Armstrong RESOLUTION NO. 96 - Recommending to City Council Rezoning of a Portion of Bay Manor Subdivision fronting on the west side of Broadway Offered by Member Stewart, adopted, passed and approved bythe following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members King, Calkins, Menzel, Crossley and Stewart NOES: none ABSENT: Member Armstrong NOT VOTING: Member Axelson (not eligible) PROPOSED EXTENSION OF KING STREET - East of Second (Existing half street dedication) The Commission asked that this item be placed on the agenda for the next roeting so that a field trip co-ald be taken. REQUEST TO BUILD `ON EASEMENT - East of Corte Maria, South of "D" Mr. Paul Bjork requested that their previously denied request to build two houses on an easement running east of Corte Maria in line with the existing Flower Street, be recon- - 3 - sidered. He stated that not owning all the property, they could not insure dedication of a half-street for the entire length of the proposed easem3ent. Various proposals were discussed to accomplish the desires of the Commission - obtaining a half-street dedication. It was moved by Member Crossley, seconded by Member Stewart and unanimously carried that a request for dedicating a one-half street asunimproved, either partially or en- tirely, be denied. It was moved by Member Crossley, seconded by Member Stewart and unanimously carried that a request for building on an easement be denied. REQUEST FOR VACATION OF THAT PORTION OF THIRD AVFAiUE NORTH OF SEAVALE The Planning Commission, upon receipt of a petition asking for vacation of that portion of Third Avenue lying between "C" Street and SeaVale, seta public hearing for considera- tion of same on September 3, 1957• VALLICITO TRACT NO. 1 - Tentative Map Tentative Maps of Vallicito Tract No. 1 were presented showing certain of the recom- mendatioms 'from the Department of Engineering on the original tentative maps. It was moved by Member King, seconded by Member Calkins and unanimously carried that the tentative map be accepted subject to the following comditions: 1. That the street name be changed to Chula Vista Street. 2. That Chula Vista Street be dedicated to a 501 width. 3. That drainage control be according to Engineering Department specifications. 4. That the Planning Commission recommends to City Council that this tenta- tive map be approved and accepted with no sidewalk on Chula Vista. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Menzel adjourned the meeting to August 19, 1957. j Respectfully submitted, d Audrey�ehouse �. Secretary i The following to be inserted prior to second motion in 'the ma ~ c tter of the "E" Street rezoning. (Minutes mended at meeting of 8-19-57) "The legal Counsel ruled that because three votes cannot carr a F an affirmative motion should be made," y motion, i