The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Statement 1972/07/22 Item 03a,b Item No. 3ab July 22, 1975 � �� CITY OF CHULA VISTA I i EM N0. 3�1� � COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT .� ' ' FORMEETING OF: 7/22i75 ITEM TITLE Public hearing - Consideration of rezoning property at 376-380 Telegraph Canyon Road from R-3 to C-O-P, PCZ-75-E • Ordinance - Rezoning properiy at 376-380 Telegraph Canyon Road from R-3 to C-O-P . SUBMITTED BY� Director of Planning ITEM EXPLANATION� This request involves the change of zone of a 1/3 acre property located at the north��zst corner of East "L" Street and Telegraph Canyon Road, for the purpose of locating an 1800 sq. ft. real estate office. The request is categorically exempt from environmental review since the building is less than 2,000 sq. ft. in size. The Planning Commission considered the request on June 25, 1975, and after holding a public hearing, was able to make the findings required to justify the rezoning, primar- ily because the property is not considered suitable for residential development; there is minimal chance that C-0 zoning would expand in this area ; and the proposed office use is small in scale. (See Resolution PCZ-75-E. ) A copy of the June 25, 1975 staff report to the Planning Commission is attached. , EXHIBITS ATTACHED Agreement Resolution Ordinance X Plot 2 Other Staf_ f RPYn t Res. PCZ-75-E Environmentai Document: Attached X SubmifTed on STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Concur with Planning Commission recommendation for approval of rezoning. , BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION� The Planning Commission voted 5-0 on June 25, 1975 to recom-nend approval of the rezoning of property at 376-380 Telegraph Canyon Road from R-3 to C-O-P, in accordance �•iith the findings in Resolution PCZ-75-E. � COUNCIL ACTION� 3° F.,.,., n—ua (Rn�5-751 '- "7u:` �' City Planiring Co�mnission . �i'!�" , From: p. J. -Reterson, Directur of Planning '�H'�� Subject: Staff report on agenda items for Planning Conunission � �4eetiny of June 25, 1975 , 1 . PU[�LIC I;EARII�G: Rezonin PC7_-75-E - 37fi-380 Telec�ra �� h Canyon Road from R-3 to C-O-P, South�,vest Im•estment Cor•poration A. [3ACt;GROUilD l . The applicants propose to locate a small 1II00 sy. ft. real estate office bttilding on a 15,000 sq. ft. vacant site, comprised of 2 lots, at the north�•iest corner of East "L" Stieet and Telegraph Canyon Road (see locator). In order to accoainodate the office at this location the applicants are requesting that the zoning be changed from f:-3 to C-O-P. The follo�•�ing agenda item is the Precise Plan for developmeni. 2. Tl�e project is categorically exempt (class 3c) from environn;er,tal reviet•; since the building area is less tlian 2000 sq. ft. (floor areas of difierent uses which are subject to environmental review are listed on pages 38-39 of the °Environmental� Revieo-i Policy"). a. ANAI_YSIS ' 1 . Sui-rounding zoning and land use: t�orti� - R-3 Apartments South. - R-1 East "L" Street, sinale familv homes East - C-P� � Service staCion, shopping center 4lest - R-1 Sii?gle family homes � 2. Site characteristics. The ��acant property lies approxin!ately 5' - 10' beloi•i East "L" Street, having been graded at an earlier date in conjunction �•rith the Robinhood Unit t�o. 7 subdivision. The sinyle family homes to i:he �;;est are s•iell above the elevation of this property and are screened by retaining e;alls ; �;�ith fences constructed on top of ihe rralls. The site is subjected� to considernble traf�ic noise and activity from the "L" Street/Telegraph Canyon fcoad intersection. All utility services are available to the property. T�•,�o existiny cui,b cuts are on the Telegraph Canyon F.oad fi,ontage. One of these ��rould be used for thc entrance dri�repray to the site; the other �•;ould be closed. The apartment buildings to the north are set back about 65 feet fl�om this property, �•iith one of the parking areas located directly adjacent. ( 3. Appropriateness of Rezoninc,. a . Although the property �•ras originally included in an R-1 subdi��ision, �•�as subdivided into t•.+c lots , and s•+as gi�aded for .r,c residential uniCs, the subsequent co�nmercial and multiple family develop;n�nts on three sides mal:e these lots imdesirable i'or R-1 develo�r;�i�t. Tiie contiiiuiny � 3° increase in traffic and noise on East "L" Street and Teleyrapii Canyon ' Road ma4:e it even less desirable to construct horr^� on this site. • City Plar�ning Co��u�i:,sion Agenda I'tem: for hiceti.ny of June 25, 1975 page 2 ' The vertical separation and orientation of this site from the homes to the west insures that the coimnercial develop�nent �aould have no detri- , mental effects on these homes. The site is not visible from the yards of the homes. r As �aill be shoo-rn on the Precise Plan, access to the property is adequate to handle the proposed use. b. Regarding the need for additional conu�iercial zoning in this area , there is nor� available a substantial amount of retail and visitor com- mercial zoning on both sides of I-EO�; hoti�rever, there is only ore parcel zoned for professioral and office uses, on Hale Street, east of I-30:i. This single lot was zoned C-O-P in July, 1972, to provide for a dental office which has never been built. A summary of commercial zoning available is as f.ollows : Zoning Acreage Location C-C-P 18.acres . east of I-II05 between Crest and lialecrest - vacant C-O-P 7000 sq. ft. lot north of Hale; east nf f-II05 - vacant ' C-N_ 2 acres west of I-805, north of East "L" Street - developed C-:'-P 7.5 ac�-es ��rest or' I=805, norih or" Telegraph Canyon Road - vacant � Total . 28. 5 .acres, 26.5 acres of �ahich is vacant � The timing. of development of the C-C-P zoned property, �•ihich does permit office uses , is unkno�•rn at this time; the applicants desire to proceed no�,a mith a freestanding building ratiier than ��iait for the uncertain plans of the other commercial developments. 4. Summary and Conclusion. yI a. Arguments. in favor of the er,pansion of commercial zoning: (1 ) The site is not desirable for R-i or R-2 developnent, and qu�ite smali for R-3 development. Development of the ai•ea ��iith a small apartment complex (11 units vrould be alloo-red) �:ould expose the residents to an adverse living environment caused by noise, ( traffic and incompatible co.�:nercial uses. (2} There is minimal C-0 zoning in this area . (3) The chances that this commercial zoning o-;ould expand further into th� area are minimal , since the areas surrounding the site • are fully developed and relati��ely ne��. �: 30 � (4) Th� lots face directiy oiito an existing se,•vice station. , .. . �.. . .� ...� .. .. , . - �- . , . C�ty Planning Commission . . . : . - Agenda Itc,r�s foi� Meeting cf June 25, 1975 page 3 � • (5) The location of a small office use on a corn2r lot near a , freeo-ray interchange oricnted a�:�ay frcm residential uses constitutes good zoning practice since access can be providzd without disrupting the residential areas. b. At�gw��nts a9ainst the expansion of the co�urercial zoning : (1 ) There is ample commercial zoning available in this area . , (2) . Rezoning the property to C-0 tlieoretically �vould permit a , number of uses ��ihich might not be compatible with the area (e.g. , a bank) . Hotiy�ever, this statement is qualified by the fact that the site is too small to accommodate any uses vrnich would require more parking than the proposed project. It should also be noted that apartments could be built in the C-0 zone under a conditional use per•mit. c. Canclusion. It is staff' s conclusion that the arguments in favor of the rezoning outo-reiyh those against, based on the unsuitability of this site for residential uses, the unique orientation and topography of the site , which ��ould prevent intrusion into the residential areas, and the improbability that, in this area, the granting of such a rezoning t�rould set a precedent for further expansion. i- i � I � . � � � � � � � i � � j � � i o - �3 � , � ; � j i