HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1980/10/28 Item 5
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
5
Meeting Date
10/28/80
ITEM TITLE:
Public hearing - Consideration of appeal Planning Commission's approval of
extension and expansion of variance PCV-80-1 for exemption from the
west to east development policy of the El Rancho del Rey Specific Plan
Director of Planninn~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes-x- No___)
~ (for over-ride)
SUBMITTED BY:
A. BACKGROUND
1. On November 20, 1979 the City Council voted 3-2 to overturn the Planning Commis-
slion's approval of a zone variance permitting development on 2.6 acres located on the
north side of East "H" Street approximately 600 feet west of Otay Lakes Road. However,
a 4/5 vote of Council is required to override a Planning Commission decision on a variance,
so the Planning Commission's approval stood. The variance requested an exemption from
the "west to east development policy" of the El Rancho del Rey Specific Plan to allow the
subject property to develop before a plan for the construction of "H" Street between 1-805
and Ot&y Lakes Road has been approved.
2. The approved variance would have expired if not used by November 20, 1980; however,
on September 24, 1980 the Planning Commission granted a one year extension of the variance
and also expanded it in area from 2.6 acres to 4 acres to include an adjacent area which
logically should develop along with the original 2.6 acre property.
3. An Initial Study, IS-80-11, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the
project was conducted by the Environmental Review Committee on August 16, 1979. The
Committee concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recom-
mended that the Planning Commission adopt the Negative Declaration. Further, the Environ-
mental Review Committee, on September 22, 1980, determined that no additional environmental
review is required for the extension and expansion of the variance.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a motion upholding the' Planning Commission's extension of PCV-80-1 for one year
and its expansion in area by 1.4 acres.
C. DISCUSSION
1. Since the time of original approval of the variance by the Planning Commission
the property has changed hands and is now owned by Huffman Construction Company, Inc.
In recent months the Planning Department has been meeting with the Huffman Company to
discuss its plans for the development of the property. During these discussions, the
Department suggested that the Huffman Company consider acquiring an additional 1.4 acre
triangular shaped property to the north of the' subject property, inasmuch as the location
and configuration of that property is such that it cannot logically be developed by
itself (see attached exhibit). The Huffman Company did acquire the adjacent 1.4 acre
property and is now in the process of preparing revised plans for the development of the
combined 4 acre area. The company requested an extension of the variance and its expan-
sion in area to allow additional time for the preparation of plans and processing them
through the Planning Commission and City Council. As indicated above, the extension and
expansion .was approved by the Planning Commission on September 24, 1980. Pursuant to
Council's instructions, the. City Manager appealed the Planning Commission's September 24
decision to the City Council.
/0'3(1
Form A-113 (Rev. 11/79)
continued
. ---
_.
-
EXHIBITS
Agreement_ Resolution Ordinance Plat X Notification List
Amendment to Res. PCV-80-1 -
Other Res. #9860 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Attached Submitted on
I
~I
I'
i
I
I
...". .
'.
Page 2, Item 5
~leeti ng Date 10/28/80
2. I had recommended denial of the original variance. That application was
processed through the appeal procedure and emerged as an approved application. It
seems unduly harsh to use the applicant's failure to utilize the variance during the
approval period as a basis for reopening all of the issues surrounding the initial
application although the expansion in area provides some basis for doing so. For that
reason and for the reason discussed below, it is my recommendation that Council uphold
the Planning Commission's September 24, 1980 action.
3. The basis for the west to east development policy in El Rancho del Rey.is
to avoid the construction of substantial new developments in the easterly portion
of El Rancho del Rey before "H" Street and other streets are improved so as to be
able to carry the traffic. Since the time of adopting that policy, substantial
progress has been made on a program for compl eti ng "H" Street between 1-805 and
Otay Lakes Road. The program is scheduled for a hearing before the Planning Commission
on November 12 and should be before Council by mid-December. The Huffman plan for the
4 acre area has not even been filed with the city so Council will have before it the
"H" Street plan before it considers the Huffman plan.
As a matter of information, the 4 acre Huffman property is designated as Residential,
11-18 DU/acre on the El Rancho del Rey Specific Plan so that it can accommodate a
maximum of 72 units.
~.~.~
~
by the City r. ',;-,cil of
Chula Vistu, C,1iifornia
Dated
/0 ~:{g-i'O
/0511
___. :aa_"-___
._J_~