HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1980/03/25 Item 05, 05a COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 5, 5a
Meeting Date 3/25/80
Public hearing - Consideration fo rezoning C.6-acre on the south side of "D"
ITEM TITLE: Street, east of Broadway, from
Ordinance /9 o s� Rezoning .6 acre on the south side of "D" Street east of
Broadway from R-3 to C-T-P
SUBMITTED BY:
Director of Planning (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X )
BACKGROUND
1 . Council held the public hearing °operty from March 4 that an of
ordinance be brought back rezoning property
including a condition requiringnclosure nof acce access
s to "D" Street at such time
as buildings may be remodeled or a chang p
2. On March 11 , at the request of the applicant, Council directed that the item be
readvertised so that the applicant could offer additional testimony.
RECOMMENDATION:
Concur with the Planning Commission recommendation with conditions 2.b, 2.c and 2.e
revised to read as follows:
and
2.b All development shall be oriented st much
heas possibleatowardfBroadwayStrdet.
shall be designed so as to minimize
The recently widened drive-through aaccess to te subject property
cefmhehaforaempldoyees and
used as much as possible for
smaller vehicles.
2.c One access driveway to "D" Street may be maintained on the subject property
for use by vehicles which cannot safely use the drive through
entrance from Broadway. The other two curb cuts and the one driveway apron
shall be removed. Street improvements and landscaping shall be installed in
accordance with city standards.
2.e A zoning wall (minimum 6' height) shall be consructedeadjacenthtolthe e R-3
zone and landscape screening (trees) as approved
planted within 90 days after the e��niignebecomes
(adjacentfinal .
to theThe
va�ant area) may the zoning wall along the south property
be deferred until the vacant area is developed. _ _ _ The wall shall
exce or e ga e area.
be. 11carried alg"ong the entire "D" Street frontage of the .propert being rezoned
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
1 . On February 13, 1980 the Planning Cmmission adopted the Negative Declaration
issued on IS-80-33, which is forwarded
2. The Planning Commission also unanimously recommended o7R0)that-the CitacCorncil
enact an ordinance to rezone the subject property
with Resolution PCZ-80-B.
Continued
Form A-113 (Rev. 11/79) _____
Page 2, Item 5., 5a
Meeting Date 3/25/80
DISCUSSION
1 . Organization of report.
The staff report of March 4 is attached as background information. This report will
address the three points which have generated some controversy in this matter. The
three points seem to be:
a. The applicant received a building permit in the R-3 zone to take advantage
of the zero side and rear yards allowed in that zone, knowing that he would
be applying for a rezoning to C-T which requires 25 ft. setbacks in this
type of situation.
b. The building permits were issued for two accessory buildings in the R-3
zone when there is no primary building on the lot.
c. Access should not be permitted to "D" Street if the property is rezoned
from R-3 to C-T-P.
2. Comments on main points.
a. Side and rear yards.
The R-3 zone permits accessory buildings to be located on the rear and side
property lines, whereas, if the property is rezoned to C-T-P, 25 ft. setbacks would be
required because the new C-T-P zone would be adjacent to an R-3 zone. The applicant
has indicated to the Planning Department that he had no long range plan to get the
building permits under the permissive setback regulations and then to rezone to C-T-P.
Even if that should not be the case, this particular issue does not constitute a basis
for determining the proper zoning on the property. If the 25 ft. setback were required,
the applicant probably would have set the buildings somewhat further back and reoriented
them so that the doors face the R-3 zone. This would tend to be more detrimental to the
R-3 zone than the existing situation where the building wall functions as a zoning wall
(although much higher) that would be required anyway.
b. Accessory buildings and uses vs. primary buildings and uses.
The zoning ordinance requires different setbacks for primary buildings than for
accessory buildings. Nothing in the ordinance requires the existence of a primary
building before a building permit can be issued for an accessory building, although
this interpretation logically flows from the dictionary meaning of the two words. Until
this case came up, the Planning Department had assumed that a building permit for an
accessory building could not be denied simply because no other building existed on the
property. As long as the plans show the accessory building in a permitted location in
full compliance with all provisions of the zoning ordinance and the building code,
Planning Department personnel would clear the building permit. I believe this interpre-
tation is a reasonable one although the City Attorney has indicated that such a permit
can be denied even if it conforms to all provisions of the code. If the situation
occurs in the future, Planning Department personnel will follow the City Attorney's
opinion. A project to amend the zoning ordinance to clarify this issue has been added
to the Planning Department's work program.
Page 3, Item 5, 5a
Meeting Date 3/25/80
c. Access to "D" Street.
Certainly the deepening of a strip commercial zone should be accompanied by a
limitation of commercial access to the side street wherever this can reasonably be done.
In considering this question in this particular case, I did not recommend a full closure
of access to "D" Street. However, my recommendation to the Planning Commission and
the Planning Commission's recommendation to Council contained four conditions of approval
which addressed this issue.
The four conditions require consolidation of the commercial and residential
property into one lot, orientation toward Broadway as much as possible, special
approval of access to "D" Street by the Traffic Engineer and myself, and limitation of
signs on "D" Street (see paragraphs 2.a, b, c, and d of the Planning Commission resolution).
The reasons for not recommending closure of all access to "D" Street are briefly listed
below:
i ) The property has had commercial access to "D" Street for 25 years under
a use variance approved by Council at that time.
ii) Commercial structures have existed in the R-3 zone for many, many years.
iii) The most easterly usable curb cut on "D" Street is only 170 feet east of
the easterly right of way line of Broadway so it does not extend a great
distance into a residential area.
iv) Because of the relatively obscure location of the property and the
nature of the adjacent uses on Broadway, the rezoning is not likely to
generate large amounts of traffic on "D" Street.
3. Appropriate zoning.
Aside from all of the factors mentioned previously, the question before the Council
is, "Should the property remain in the R-3 zone or should it be zoned C-T-P. " It is
clear to me that the C-T-P zoning is the appropriate zoning for the reasons summarized
below:
a. The existing depth of the C-T zoning (90 feet) in this location is inade-
quate for modern commercial development.
b. The property has been used commercially for 25 years.
c. Approval of the rezoning with the attachment of the "P" Modifying District
affords the opportunity to get the site cleaned up with appropriate zoning
walls and landscaping installed.
d. The property is under the same ownership as the adjacent commercial property
fronting on Broadway and the several parcels have recently been combined
into one larger parcel .
e. The site simply lacks a residential character. The buildings, the historic
access and the location of the property to the rear of long standing commer-
cial buildings, all combine to give the property a strong auto-related commer-
cial character and a poor residential environment.
Page 4, Item 5,. 5a
Meeting Date 3/25/80
CONCLUSION
This is not a nice "clean" rezoning case. It is a case which has many facets and some
of those facets arguably can be thought of as pointing toward maintaining the R-3
zoning. Upon considering all of the facets, however, it is clear to me that their
preponderance argues quite persuasively in favor of C-T-P zoning subject to the condi-
tions specified in the Planning Commission's resolution with conditions 2.b, 2.c, and
2.e modified as described in the "RECOMMENDATION" section.
a
)44,r,o-100%.. 4140,.... __
T-- • (,.....4,64-€)
,V,/,,-(i
,5 - as- BU
CONDITIONED
• NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT TITLE: Paxton Garage Rezone
Project Location: 107 Broadway
Project Proponent: McMillin Development, Inc.
30th & B Sts. National City, CA 92050
CASE NO. IS-80-33 DATE: January 3 , 1980
A. Project Setting
The proposed project includes 0. 96 acres of property located adjacent
to the easterly boundary of 107 Broadway with frontage on D St.
The property is presently being used for automobile storage, approved
by a Use Variance in 1954. Three storage garages exist on the
property at this time. Multiple family units are presently
existing north and east of the site and a vacant lot is located
to the south. The existing use west of the project site is auto
repair and storage.
B. Project Description
The applicant is requesting the rezoning of the pl:°oject site from
R-3 to C-T and plans to construct an additional 1840 sq. ft. auto
repair facility along the southerly side .of the project.
C. Compatibility with zoning and plans
The proposed development, which is an expansion of the present
use at 107 Broadway, is in conformance with the General Plan.
The proposed use will be subject to a Conditional Use Permit for
the expansion of the auto repair facility.
D. Identification of environmental effects
•
1. Noise
Due to the orientation of the existing structures which are
to be used for auto repair, and the separation from adjacent
multiple family units, the problem of increased ambient noise
levels appears neglibible. The construction of a 6 ft. high
zoning wall along the east and south property line and
conformance with the Performance Standards outlined in Chapter
19 . 66 of the Municiple Code should hold noise levels to an
acceptable level.
2. Aesthetics
The applicant ,proposes providing spot lights for nightsecurity.
These lights shall be shielded to prevent excess glare on the
adjacent street right-of-way and adjacent residential areas.
E. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant impact
1 . A 6 ' high zoning wall shall be constructed on the east and
south property lines adjacent to the residential zones' property.
2 . Exterior security lights shall be shielded to prevent
excess glare on the adjacent right-of-way and residential areas.
F. Findings of insignificant impact
1. There are no significant natural resources present within
the project area that could be impacted.
2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan
land use designation and associated elements and is not
anticipated to achieve short term to the disadvantage of long
term environmental goals.
3. The Conditional Use process will insure conformance
with zoning regulations. No impacts are anticipated that could
interact to create any substantial cumulative effect on the
environment.
4 , The project will not cause the emission of any hazardous
substance or noise which could be detrimental to human beings.
There are no natural hazards on or near the project site which
could result in a substantial and adverse impct.
G. Consultation
1. Individuals & Organizations
City of Chula Vista D. J. Peterson, Director of PJ. nning
Bill Ullrich, Assoc. Eng.
Ted Monsell, Fire Marshal
Gene Grady, Director of Bldg. & Hsg.
Merritt Hodson, Env. Control Commission
•
Applicant, Corky McMillan
Ken Baumgartner
2. Documents
Use Variance for 594 D St. , dated 11/1/54
Chapter 19, Municiple Code of the City of Chula Vista
The Initial Study Application and evaluation forms documenting the
findings of no significant impact are on file and available for public
review at the Chula Vista Planning Dept. , 276 4th Ave. , Chula Vista, CA,
ircelENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
•
EN 3 (rev. 5/77)
... ,
.
.
. 0
R. si D 11
STREET
■••■■■••%, 7•■••■•••*..,r
i
;14 i
IA
NV ,
219.0 o eimmilausimunif i ., I
lose sr i 1 i,4
• ' s, • ‘ , ' X \ 41111111111.1."
.•,,, ''‘, \ `,, / .
Q. .
\ ..
. .
/ *
P •,„ ..., \
1 4. 1\\\
— //
/ ...
/ . s„ '' 1\
\\ \\'.
AIN PROPOSED
ZONE CHANGE
FROM
R..3 ,.
to C--T . .
.
., ,-
\'‘',`'• e
.:
- cr)
41 ,—
‘Nk 1
,- • , ,...................„0„,„,e." ._ .
.:
..111.....m.........,
/ ' •'
' 771
,.
M>_,.5 Y,_,„11.°'' 1' ltt O0.,■i 1.i,,‘"--f—r, IS2T.I3 1 5 1 /,-. .•,r
EXNG /. .
.:
3s.
,i .I-L:'-'N',,\u wo e 1e•.-:*-..f--:,..--'.,,,, ;-',,*.N
:•
ca C-T ZONE . .
,
ox gli A
dAr
cir.) ..
. ;
. • .,
. .
8 \ • - - - .
. ., . ._ . ... C
•
. .
.., ,
, 11
. ,
.
: „
‘\,
.
■ f,
L C I I I WEIMMEIZIII S. , .
. 1/184:040 &
. u
, K
. 0
. 11
EXISTING 'BUILDINGS -U ',‘ I •
•
. .
i .
. ,.
,1,
' 0
•....
_ ..„. _.__
Exhibit A
r..- -zi*3■41=11;1•1:1= .. - ---
; . • in. two parce13 From
No SCtstE )07 : - • • •" •
-..,
NORTH ..
,...........,-
__....__________..._.. . , , .. _ . . ........„....__...,.........._......._ . ___
.... . . ..
I 7■175 ■ . I. ' .
p 1 1 I I
0 MC INTOSH
I T D T 0 _ - ' -
~r � � I i I
7r
�' ' D I --
1 ; 0 1 � �
I
3TA ST. D
I j1ii
CASSELMAN
I
_ _ i (:?.--: , k -4-—Ai _ .._, , _ li
r I S
I
I I I S •- MOTEL MF VACANT IMFI SF ImF I S°
RESTPU II) AUTO PARTS
* • al
m Z �.-cz I I I �f?
/.�: I 1 1
o ONE CH,ANG I I a
Z BAR VAC R- to I C- i r (
� �._._ -
VAC I I #1 . �:
.- I I I
R �t?� m � r --4
ISF I I I
'' I
—tl
• !
. .
I 1
I 11 1
1 � I - I I I �
-- - i F11149F t . r V g I I " I
FLOWER °
i I 1 i I H
.._ . , .< '
m - -- I I I c I
-" --- I I I I . •
Locator .
NORTH
11 u II --
---- 139.32'
r,
c. `
�- !29.68 _-
1968 m
is-
. • `
- 115.80' -o
STREET
— m v
a
0
a
O
CD
tiaRr
N
. w
-J 01 50' 100'
Q— — 1 1
CASE NO. PCZ -80-B I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS ZONING MAP
ACREAGE 0.57 ac. WAS APPROVED AS A PART OF ORDINANCE
1905 BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON APR. let.1980
SCALE: 111= 100'
. a • ,D y,7-ea
DATE: APRIL 17, 1980 DEPUTY CITY CLERK DATE
DRAWN Br1 &
CHECKED B ____ ZONING MAP 379
RESOLUTION NO. PCZ-80-B
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING
TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE CHANGE OF ZONE FOR .6 ACRES,
CONSISTING OF TWO PARCELS, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
"D" STREET, EAST OF BROADWAY, FROM R-1 TO C-T-P
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for rezoning of property was filed
with the Planning Department by McMillin Development, Inc. on December 13, 1979,
application No. PCZ-80-B, and
WHEREAS, said application requested a change of zone for approximately .6
acres, consisting of two parcels, located on the south side of "D" Street, 90
feet east of Broadway, from R-3 to C-T-P.
WHEREAS, an Initial Study, IS-80-33, was conducted by the Environmental
Review Committee on December 27, 1979, which concluded that there would be no
significant adverse environmental impact as the result of the rezoning and issued
a draft Negative Declaration, and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing
on said zone change, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was
given by the publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at
least 10 days prior to the date of said hearing, and
WHEREAS, a hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely
7:00 p.m. , February 13, 1980, before the Planning Commission and said hearing
was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1 . The Commission finds that in accordance with the Negative Declaration
on IS-80-33 and the findings stated therein, this rezoning will have no signifi-
cant environmental impact, and certifies that the Negative Declaration was
prepared in accordance with CEQA, 1970, as amended.
2. From facts presented to the Commission, the Commission finds that public
necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice require the
change of zone for property located on the south side of "D" Street, east of
Broadway, from R-3 to C-T-P and establishing the following precise plan
guidelines:
a. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the approximately one
acre site fronting on Broadway and "D" shall be consolidated into one parcel .
b. All development shall be oriented as much as possible toward Broadway
and shall be designed so as to minimize the necessity of access from "D" Street.
At such time as either of the buildings along Broadway adjacent to the drive thru
may be remodeled, staff shall work with the owner to increase the width of the
drive-thru by four or five feet.
c. Access trom u" street snail be subject Lo the cippruvai ui
Director of Planning and the Traffic Engineer.
d. Signs along "D" Street shall be limited to those signs which are
deemed necessary by the Director of Planning for the purpose of providing infor-
mation and direction rather than for identification of the business.
e. A zoning wall (minimum 6' height) shall be constructed adjacent to
the R-3 zone and landscape screening (trees) as approved by the City, shall be
planted within 90 days after the zoning becomes final . The portion of the zoning
wall along the south property line (adjacent to the vacant area) may be deferred
until the vacant area is developed. The wall shall be carried along the "D"
Street frontage.
f. The storage garages shall be considered as conforming buildings for
the purposes of the zoning ordinance since their location was approved as accessory
buildings in the R-3 zone.
3. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that said change
of zone be approved.
4. That this resolution be transmitted to the City Council and a copy be
transmitted to the applicant.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
this 13th day of February, 1979 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Commissioners Stevenson, R. Johnson, Smith, Pressutti , G. Johnson,
O'Neill and Williams
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
/if" '
c4.1-3,A1 AL)"."4 6(
• Chai rma'h
ATTEST:
Secretary
•
D- i90S'
" D" -- STREET
�-- 139.32' -,
r
-- I29.68 -
Q `1 I
I I
1
— o It)ai
N ••
1 19.68\ 1`
115.80' -_�
— — —
a
o
m
_ NORT
N
r I•
w
J 0' 50' 100'
CASE NO. PCZ -80-B I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS ZONING MAP
ACREAGE 0.57 cc. WAS APPROVED AS A PART OF ORDINANCE
1905 BY THE CITY COUNCIL SON APR. Iat.1980
SCALE: 1 100' dc,....... N �r-_. y/7-80
DATE: APRIL 17, 1980 DEPUTY CITY CLERK DATE
oDRAWN eY' o ZONING MAP 3 79
L. CHECKED BY: J
. , _,_____ ___