Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1953-02-16 PC MINS MINUTES OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Held February 16, 1953 The Planning Commission and City Council met in the Council Chambers of the -- City Hall on the above date at 7:30 P.M. with the following present: Members Wulff, Poulter, Longworth, Drew, Stewart and_Smith l Absent: Member Ramage Councilmen present: DeWolfe and Halferty Also Present: City Attorney Boyer, City Planner Wagner and City Engineer Floyd, and Assistant to City Engineer Wheeler APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Poulter questioned 'the accuracy of the report regarding the approval of trailer park plans for two trailer parks at the meeting of February 21 1953. It was his understanding that these plans were to have conformed to the proposed new trailer ordinance and that, if they do not conform, he would not have voted in favor, of the approval. It was requested that the City Planner check the plans again as to their conformance with the proposed new ordinance and to report at the next regular meeting, at which-time the minutes of the meeting of February 2 would be considered for approval. TENTATIVE MAPS Rose View - H. Foster for L. T. Brewer. Mr. Goodes, property owner to the south, was present and discussion centered around an access from Mr.- Brewer's subdivision into the Goodes property. Mr. Brewer agreed to deed a south portion-of the proposed subdivision to Mr. Goodes for a future extension of King Street to Second Avenue. It was moved by Member Longworth, seconded by Member Drew and unanimously carried that the tentative map fof Rose View be approved as submitted subject to. Mr. Brewer's deeding the south 29.5Mt. of' his property for future street purposes to Mr'. Goodes for the location of a future 50 ft. street extension of King Street westerly of its present terminus, said condition to be placed in the deed and shall be limited to ten years. RECOMMENDATION Recommendation for rezoning portion of property on north side of "C" Street between National and HighTandAvenue-s int e County. Mr. -Gordon Kromer, representing Mr. Garth Knapp, owner of the majority of the property, was present and explained that he had talked to Mr. Loren Deewalli County Zoning Administrator, regarding this proposed rezoning and was told to effect.'an expression from the Chula Vista Planning Commission, as to its views on the matter. It was agreed that a telephone call to the County Planning Office would be -sufficient, as no definite plans for the final development of the property had been completed. Discussion centered around the R-3 zone on the south side of "C" Street over- looking this proposed rezoning, .and of the city property in Eucalyptus Park. Mr. Kromer stated that Mr. Knapp was desirous of extending the same C-1 zone that exists on both sides of Highland Avenue westerly to National Ave., a distance of 330 ft. in depth. City Planner Wagner read to the Commission the various uses allowed in the County to C-1 and M-1 zones. It was moved by Member Poulter, seconded by Member Smith and unanimously carried that the City Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista recommends the rezoning of the property on the north side -of "C" Street 330 ft. deep between the existing C-1 zone on Highland Ave. and National Ave. from E-2Z zone to C-1 zone, providing that the C-1 zone extend to the east line of National Ave., more particularly described as all of ten acre lots 8 and9 of Qtr. Section 151. PETITION Petition requesting the name of Palomar Dr. in Country Club Villas not be changed was presented to the Commission by Mr. Claude Conklin.,- original subdivider of the property. Mr. Conklin explained that he had picked the name, Palomar Drive, because it was harmonious with Sierra' Uay and San Miguel Drive and stated that if the County people were having difficulty with Palomar Street that they might change the name of their street. Member Drew agreed with Mr. Conklin. Attorney Boyer stated that the ordinance changing the .name of certain streets was not complete and that if the Commission wished Palomar Drive to be deleted from the Ordinance, it could be done now. It was moved by Member Longworth, seconded by Member Drew, that Mr. Boyer delete Palomar Drive from the requested street name changes in the new ordinance and that City Planner Wagner write a letter to the County requesting them to change the name of Palomar Street. The motion carried by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Members Wulff, Longworth, Drew, Smith and-Poulter NAYS: Member Stewart ABSENT: Member Ramage Member Stewart said that he felt that Mr. Conklin and the signers of the peti- tion had good reason for requesting the deletion but so would other name change deletions which may be requested'as a result of this action. It was moved by Member Smith, seconded by Member Longworth and unanimously carried that the original motion be amended to delete the necessity for the letter from the City Planner to the County requesting the name change. DISCUSSION ON TRAILER PARK ORDINANCE Mr. H. Raitt of the Rose Arbor Trailer Court was present and stated that he had seen a copy of the proposed new ordinance and desired the Commission to set a de- finite- date for open. discussion on this proposed ordinance as there were some things that trailer park operators might disagree with in the ordinance, and should have a chance to express themselves. He .'said that he objected to recent newspaper reports which throw unfavorable light on extisting trailer parks in Chula Vista. Chairman Wulff explained that all Planning Commission meetings as well as Council meetings, are open to .the general public, but that prior to the necessary published public hearings that the Commission and the Council wish to have the op- portunity of informal discussion. Mr. Raitt said that he desired a chance for open discussion before both bodies, Attorney Boyer explained that the proper procedure does not require published legal notices in the preparation of or amendments to any ordinances other than the zoning ordinance. Chairman 'brulff suggested that Mr. Raitt be notified by City Planner Wagner when public hearings are to be held. Member Smith suggested that if there is a trailer park operators' association in Chula Vista, that the Chairman of the association be notified. Mr. Raitt said he believed that there are only two members of such.an association in Chula. Vista. He said he agreed that the City needs a new trailer park - ordinance but feels that the trailer park owners who have had so much experience on this subject should be given.an opportunity to aid in its preparation. City Planner Wagner expressed appreciation of Miss Redden's overtime hours in the preparation of the copies of the ordinance for distribution: -2- Chairman Wulff stated that the Planning Commission wished to convey its appre- ciation to Miss Redden, also. Councilmen DeWolfe and Halferty joined the Commission at this.point, REPORT OF MEMBER DREW. ON SAN DIEGO COUNTY PLA14NING CONGRESS Chairman Wulff introduced Member Drew who outlined the activities of the steering committee of the San Diego County Planning 'Congress and made some comparisons with the Los Angeles County Planning Congress where 500 "to 600 people meet regularly to discuss planning problems. Mr. Drew outlined the recommendations of the steering committee and their report to the Congress itself to be read at a meeting to be held in March. Each Planning Commission is to present a concise report of its .own activi- ties for general distribution at this meeting, to be held, possibly, on March 19, at a place to be chosen by Dr. Willis Miller, County Planning Director. Each member commission should be prepared to designate a number for the Board of Directors and should submit a report of basic data on. the Commission and its staff. Present plans call for the Board of Directors to meet with each of the commissions with an intent to aid in overall long range planning problems. Chairman Wulff requested the City Planner to prepare the report to contain salient problems conft-oiting the Chula Vista Planning Commission for distribution at this meeting. DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS DEVELOPMENT PLAN . Councilman Halferty.explained that he and Councilman Logan had been appointed by Mayor Riesland.. to act as-a committee to study the needs of the library board with regard to the location of a new library 'or .the remodeling of the present one. Chairman Wulff suggested a check with title companies as to the possibility of any deed res- trictions on the present library property. City Planner Wagner read a letter from the Library Board requesting- study for improvement of -the library conditions and an accompanying basic sheet data on library needs. It was agreed by all that. the City Planner should prepare a study of the build- ing -area and parking area requiresments for a new library. ' Councilman DeWolfe suggested that perhaps a new wing could be built on the pre- sent library that would suffice for about five to six years. It should;be one that could be moved to a new site later. --Chairman Wulff suggested it might be wise to in- clude in the library study the feasibility of 'a smaller central library with branches as the demand requires. He also reminded the Commission of the remarks of Mrs. Janice Stewart, Librarian regarding the confusion of remodeling or rebuilding on the present library site as compared to the completion of a new building and -the ease with which one move (only _could be accomplished. Chairman Wulff explained that the City of San Diego's plans called for branch -libraries in the outlying districts. Member Drew mentioned that it might be necessary to plan for branch fire stations in the future also. Chairman Wulff requested the City Planner to check with the title companies.re- garding restrictions in present library site and to have Mr. Kinmore, Chairmand of the Library Board, notified of the Commission's action in this matter. -3- DISCUSSION OF FUTURE POLICIES GOVERNING ANNEXATIONS Councilman Delvolfe stated that the City Council had had two or three different discussions regarding policies on annexations but to date had arrived at no definite conclusion or had taken definite action. He stated that there are two types of annexations to be considered. One - the undeveloped area to the east which, if annexed, should be made to conform to all local ordinances, ,especially the subdivi- sion ordinance and its restrictions for improvements, and should be developed along extremely high quality lines and - two '- the area to the south considered substandard with regard to the City of Chula Vista's improvement requirements which has to be voted in by both the City and the area to be annexed and should be required to pay a certain amount per lot in order to be brought up to the present City standards. Councilman DeWolfe outlined some of' the activities of some of the developers to the south who have developed subdivisions with small lots and no sidewalks or curbs. Of course when they do .annex, they will be paying the same tax rate as the present city taxpayers. He called for better understanding between the Planning Commission and the City Council for future policies. Chairman Wulff compared some of the better land to the east when annexation occurs to the undeveloped land within',the city limits who are not charged special assessments per lot for certain city improvements. Member Drew stated that he thinks we should ask ourselves what is the advantage to Chula Vista for annexation. If these areas are developed outside the City, even though they may be substandard,­ they are still in the Chula Vista shopping area. He further stated that it was his opinion that if the area to the east does not annex to .Chula Vista, that there is very little chance of its ever being developed and pointed out certain advantages to a developer by-annexation to the City, such as lower insurance rates, higher property values, etc. He stated that land to the east is worth much less-per acre than comparable land within the city limits and is sold for a low price developed at a low cost and then request- annexation, deriving benefits that they should pay for on a per lot basis. He fur- there suggested that the Sweetwater valley be annexed one half to National City and the other to Chula Vista. Councilman DeWolfe pointed out that an advantage to the City of annexation would be to control and force high type development of the land according to city standards, rather than witness substandard development along county standards just outside the city limits. He further sta'ted that he felt that the cost of development of an area outside the City with regard to certain improvements was higher than within the city limits. Member Longworth stated. that he felt that there should be. certain payments to- the city in view of the fact that .there .are such tremendous profits to the developers. Councilman Halferty said that he felt the �City has something to offer these developers such as better insurance rates, better services, more lots per acre and that they should pay to the City proportionately to their profit. It was requested that the City Planner prepare .a report on the per capita cost to the city for all its services. Councilman DeWolfe explained how the tax dollar is spent for city payroll, city equipment, etc. and how the services have increased as the city has grown. Member Stewart cautioned against the possibility of causing potentially good area for development to shy away from annexation if the charges are too high. He expressed a desire for uniform policies among all cities regarding annexations and the elimination of- future county substandard developments. -4- Chairman Wulff reviewed the discussions that had taken place and stated that all seem to agree- that it is better to annex property with control than to allow substandard development around the city. Councilman DeWolfe cited examples of some areas surrounding cities developing their own business districts .and adversely affecting the cities's potential business .expansion which could have been accomplished if the areas had been annexed to the city. Member Stewart stated that, in his opinion, the City loses tax dollars as they annex property, because it costs so much more to administer for ten new property owners coming into the city than for ten new property owners ,developing within the city. He further .stated that annexations do not necessarily reduce taxes in cities. Member Drew stated that he looks with favor upon the annexation of vacant land providing it is developed according to Chula Vista standards and providing a payment of a proper share of the cost of capital improvements is made. Chairman Wulff agreed with Member Drew and would be willing to accept that as a. policy recommendation of the Commission. It was moved by Member Smith, seconded by Member Stewart, th.^t the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that bare lend contiguous to the boundaries of the City of Chula.:Vista wit"ri the proper zoning as determined at the time of annexation, and that each parcel should bear an -annexation fee to be determined by study of the City Council. It- was moved by Member Drew thr.� this motion as ,stated by Member Smith be amended to include the statement, "provided this vacant land could not otherwise be developed except by annexation" . Said motion failed for lack of a second. The original motion carried by the following.vote, to wit: AYES: Member Wulff, Longworth, Smith, Stewart, Poulter NAYS: Member Drew . ABSENT: Member Ramage Member Drew stated that he voted "no" because he felt the motion was incomplete. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by I'iember Smith, seconded by Member Stewart and unanimously carried, that the meeting adjourn side die. Fred E. J+f-:gner, Acting etary -