The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Statement 1975/07/22 Item 3a,b Item no. 3a,b July 22, 1975 • % . . . . � CITY OF CHULA VISTA I i EM N0. ��, 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 northtia2st 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, v+as able to make the findings required to justify the rezoning, primar- ily because the property is not considered suitable for residential development; ±h�re 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 Plat 2 Othe; Staff RPOO t Res. PCZ-75-E Environmental Document: Attached X Submitted on STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Concur with Planning Coirmiission recortunendation for approval of rezoning. , BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION� The Planning Commission voted 5-0 on June 25, 1975 to recommend approval of the rezoning of property at 376-380 Telegraph Canyon Road from R-3 to C-O-P, in accordance �•�ith the findings in Resolution PCZ-75-E. COUNCIL ACTION� 3� Fn.m A-II� fRPV 5-751 •. 1'0:'- ' ' City Planrin9 Co�rnnission ��'!�"- From: �. J. ReCei�son, Directui� of Planning ��HIpiS: Subject: Staff report on a9enda items for Pianning Con�nission �7 t�eeting of June 25, 1975 , 1 . PUI�LtC N[ARIIdG: Rezoninq PCZ-75-E - 376-380 Telecaraph Can�en Road from R-3 to C-U-P, South�.aest Im�estment Cor•poration A. QACf:GROUdD 1 . Tfi� applicants propose to ?ocate a small 1II00 sy. ft. reai estate office building on a 15,000 sq. ft. vacant site, comprised of 2 lots, at tlie north�•iest corner of East "L" Stieet and Telegraph Canyon Road (see locator) . In order to acconmodate the o`fice at this location the applicants are requestin9 that the zonin9 be changed from R-3 to C-O-P. The folloti•iing agenda item is the Precise Plan for development. 2. The project is categorically exempt (class 3c) from environmer�al revie�•: since the building area is less than 2000 sq. ft. (floor areas of di`f`erent uses which are subject to environmental revie��r are listed on pages 38-39 of the "[nvironrr,ental Revie��i Policy"). [3. ANALYSIS ' 1 . Suri•ounding zoning and land use: IdortH - R-3 Apartments South - R-1 East °L" Street, sinale familv homes East - C-P7 Service station, shopping center ldest - R-1 Single family homes � 2. Site characteristics. The vacant property lies approximately 5' - 10' beloti�� East "L" Street, having been graded at an earlier date in conjunction �•iith *he Robinhooc; Unit t�o. 7 subdivision. The sinyle family horaes to the :rest are �•rell abo��e the elevation of this property and are screened by retaining s;alls; �•rith fences constructed on top of ihe �•ralls. The site is subjected� to consid�rable traf�ic noise and activity frum the "L" Street/Telegraph Canyon fioad intersectio�. All utility services are available to the property. T�•ro existing cin�b uits are on the Telegraph Can,on P,oad f�-on±age. One of these �rould be u�ed for thc entrance drivel;ay to the site; the other r;ould be closed. The apartment buildings to the north are set back abou* 65 feet �rom this ( property, ��rith one of the parking areas located directly adjacent. 3. Appi•opriateness of Rezonin,. a . Although the prope•rty �r�s originally included in an R-1 subdi�-ision, a�as subdivided into t.:�c lotis , and ��,as graded for .�:�o residential units , tihe subsequent comnercit!1 and multiple family de��elope;ents on three sides mal:e Chese lots undesirahle ior R-1 develor:��nt. Tiie con*irwiny � '3° incrcase in traffic ❑nd nnise on [ast "L" 5treei �nd Telegr��ph Canyon ' Road ma4;e it even less desirable Co construct ho!r.� on this sitie. � City PlanninrJ Co�runi;sion A9enda tCemS for hlcetiny of June 25, �975 page � � The vertical separaCion and orientation of this site fl-om the homes to the west insures that the corun^rcial develop�rent tivould have no detri- , mental effccts on these homes. The site is not visible from the yards of the homes. As ��ill be shoi�m on the Precise Plan, access to the pr•operty is adeyuate to handle the proposed use. b. Regarding the need for additional commercial zoning in this a�ea , there is now available a substantia; amount of retail and visitor com- mercial zoning on both sides of I-80:i; hoo-retrer, there is only ore parcel zoned for pro�essior.al 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 co.r.mercial zoning available is as follo�as : Zoning Acreage Location C-C-P 18.acres . east of I-II05 between Crest and Hal ecrest - vacant C-O-P 7000 sq. ft. lot north of Hale; east nf f-f305 - vacant , C-N 2 acres taest of I-805, north of East "L" Street - developed C-:'-P 7.5 acres �•rest o�` I-805, norih of Telegraph Canyon Road - vacant • -. Total 28. 5 .acres, 26.5 acres of which is vacant The timing of developinent of the C-C-P zoned property, �•ihich does permit office uses , is un4;nown at this time; the applicants desire to proceed no�,a �vith a freestanding building rather than v:ait for the uncertain plans of the other commercial developr�ients. J� 4. Sur.miary and Conclusion. a. Arguments in favor of the er.pansion of commercial zoning : (1 ) The site is not desirable for R-1 or R-2 developnent, and qu�ite small for R-3 de��elop�ent. Development oi' the area riith a small apartment complex (11 units o-�ould be alle�•�ed) ti+ould ex.pose the residents to an adverse living environment caused by noise, � traffic and incompatible co.�nercial uses. (2) Thcre is mini�nal C-0 zoning in this ai•ea . (3) The cLances that this commercial zonin9 �;ould expand fur±her into the area are minimal , since the areas sur�rounding the site are fully developed and relatively ne��. �: 3° � (4 ) The lots face directly anto an existing se;�vice station. ' . . ��. . ++� . �e..( ... ti Y _ C:ty Planning Cornnission . . : . • Agenda lte,�s i'ot=� �9eeting cf Junc 25, 1975 page 3 � _ • (5) The location of a s!nall office use on a corn2r lot near a , freeway inCerchange ori�.nted a�:ray frcin residential uses constitutes good zonin9 practice since access can be provided without disrupting the residential areas. b. Argu�ents against the expansion of the co��ercial zoning : (1 ) There is arple coranercial zoning available in this area . , (2) Rezoning the prop�rty to C-0 theoretically would permit a , number of uses tivhich inight not b� compatible with the area (e.9. , a bank) . lio�,l�ever, this statement is qualified hy the fact that the site is too sr�all to accom��odate any uses rrnich ��ould reGuire more parkin9 than the proposed project. It should also be noted that apar•urents could be built in the C-0 zone under a conditional use permit. c. Conclusion. It is staff's conclusion that the arguments in favor of the rezoning out�,�eigh those against, based on the unsuitability of this site for residential uses, the unique orientation and topogr•aphy of the site ' which �:ould prevent intrusion into the i-2sidential areas, and the improbability that, in this area , the granting of such a rezoning ��rould set a precedent for further expansion. ,, . 1 I f i ! i ' i � � ; , j I I � i i O - 3 • , ; � � i i i