Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1969/03/19 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA March 19, 1969 The second public hearing for the consideration of a comprehensive prezoning plan for the Sweetwater Valley was held on the above date, beginning at 7 p.m., in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, Chula Vista. Members present included: Rice, Stewart, Chandler, Macevicz, Adams, Putnam; Absent (with previous notification), Hyde. Others present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, Zoning Enforce- ment Officer Hodge. Director of Planning Warren called attention to maps displayed: one indicating existing County zoning; one showing the recommendations of the Sweetwater Valley Planning Commission; the third indicating the Planning staff's recommendations to the Planning Commission. He advised the audience that this is a prezoning plan requested by the residents of the Valley and it will have no effect on the zoning presently existing in the County until or unless the property is annexed to the City of Chula Vista. Director Warren pointed out shaded areas on the map recommended by the Sweetwater Valley Planning Committee where changes had been requested by individual owners, residents, or developers. Those requests were taken into consideration in preparing the staff's recommendation for prezoning, which retains the majority of the Committee's recommendations. Mr. Warren attempted to clarify the purpose of the A-8 or Agricultural Zone, pointing out this is used as a holding zone and has been applied to the flood plain area until plans for development might justify a change of zone. It is not anticipated this would be developed for residential use in 8 acre parcels. Mr. Warren noted that in response to petitions presented at the previous hearing, signed by residents of the Sunnyside area, requesting that their area not be included in prezoning, certain portions covered by the original study and map have been deleted. The original study encompassed approximately 5,000 acres while the present recommendations cover 3,820 acres. Of this total area, 2368 acres are recommended for residential, commercial use would cover 89 acres; 753 acres would be in open space; and 619 acre~ devoted to other use, including schools, streets and cemetary. It is estimated there would be a total potential population of 24,000 people on the 3800 acres. The public hearing was opened by Vice-chairman Rice. Member Stewart suggested that the map be considered in increments, so that the Commission could hear all comments concerning a particular section before considering the next section. Planning Director Warren outlined Area 1, using the proposed Freeway as the westerly boundary, taking in the Bonita Mesa area south of Sweetwater Road, and down to the Valley floor. This is recommended for A-8 on the Valley floor, R-l-lO on the Mesa, and commercial zoning adjacent to the proposed freeway interchange. There were no comments from the floor concerning this prezoning. Area 2 was outlined as consisting of the Valley floor extending to Bonita Bridge, and including Glen Abbey Memorial Park and Glen Abbey Circle south of Bonita Road. This is recommended for A-8, R-E, R-l-lO, withR-3-T and a small area of commercial zoning adjacent to Bonita Road. -2- 3/19/69 Mr. Janosik, 3225 Glen Abbey Blvd., read a petition presented to the Commission which he stated was signed by 95% of the residents of the Glen Abbey Circle area which requested the elimination of that area unless it is prezoned C-2. Area 3 would include the area east of Glen Abbey Park, along the south side of Bonita Road to McMillin's Development and down the easterly edge of Acacia Avenue. This would not affect parcels presently zoned in the City of Chula Vista. There were no comments from the floor concerning the prezoning of this area. Area 4 extends from the easterly edge of Acacia Avenue, including the southerly portion of Sunnyside along the edge of the flood plain and an area north of San Miguel Road recommended for R-E zoning. The major portion of the Sunnyside area was not included in this recommendation. Mr. Paul Roland, 6135 San Miguel Road, lives at the easterly edge of the area marked for R-E zoning. He asked whether, in the event plans are presented for development, consideration might be given to zoning for higher density. He added that he felt the Committee and the Commission have taken the best approach to the Sunnyside area by deleting the bulk of the area from the proposed prezoning. Mr. Del Hep, 5308 Central Avenue in Sunnyside, requested the Director of Planning to read a petition requesting that the initial petition filed with the Chula Vista Planning Commission prior to the public hearing held on January 13, which requested that the area of Sunnyside be deleted from the prezoning plan be held in abeyance as initially presented. Mr. Hep expressed the feeling that the entire area referred to in the original petition had not been deleted and for the Commission to include any portion of the Sunnyside area would be in violation of the wishes of the people who had signed the petition. Director of Planning Warren pointed out that the present recommendations include only portions on which the use appears to be established and the prezoning almost duplicates the zoning existing in the County. Mr. Janosik, 3225 Glen Abbey, made reference to a statement that prezoning would have no effect on the residents unless they wished to annex to the City of Chula Vista. He avowed that the County Planning Commission last week continued a hearing for rezoning on a parcel in the Sweetwater Valley until they could see how Chula Vista prezoned the Valley. Planning Director Warren advised that through the working relationship between City and County Departments, any request that falls within the general planning area of Chula Vista is referred to the Planning Department for comments; however, actions of the City Planning Commission are not binding on the CountY. Mr. L. E. Morrison, 5103 Sweetwater Road, spoke in opposition to including the Valley floor in this area in the prezoning, and specifically requested that his property be excluded. Chairman Rice acknowledged the request and said it will be taken into consideration. Planning Director Warren explained that the purpose of the study and recommendations of the Sweetwater Valley Planning Committee was to present a plan for the entire Valley rather than establishing zoning piecemeal as it is sometimes done when annexed to the City. If individual areas were eliminated it would distort the entire plan. -3- 3/19/69 Area 5 is comprised of the area north of Sunnyside, including the Valley floor, and extending along the westerly edge of Bonita Woods up to the South Bay Freeway, around to the lake and back to the Valley floor. Planning Director Warren pointed out that R-l-15 prezoning is recommended for a parcel which includes the Baron Ranch, while the balance of the area is recommended for R-E zoning. Mr. Bob Miles, 314 Rose View Place, Chula:Vista, speaking from the developer's point of view, expressed the feeling that the size of lots is being over emphasized. There are areas in which 10,000 square foot lots are adequate and he felt the topography should dictate the size of lots rather than zoning. Mr. Steve Gassaway, Orchard Hill Drive, commented that the area known as Baron's Ranch has come up for consideration a number of times by the Civic Association and by the County. He regretted that the staff proposal to reduce this to 15,000 sq. ft. lots was not presented at the time of the Sweetwater Valley Town Meeting as he did not believe there are people present from Bonita Park West who might object to the change from the Committee's recommendation of 20,000 sq. ft. lots for that area. He added that people to the north and to the west have developed half acre lots and they would probably not like to see this go less than 20,000 sq. ft. Mr. L. E. Morrison, 5103 Sweetwater Road, again spoke requesting the deletion from the prezoning map of the property which he owns on the Valley floor, as well as four acres on the north side of Bonita Road. Chairman Rice assured him his request will be considered, but if the Planning Com- mission feels it should be included in order to present an orderly plan for the Sweetwater Valley, then it would be included even though it did not meet with the wishes of each individual in the area. A final determination will be made by the City Council. Mr. Bob Miles, 314 Rose View Place, Chula Vista, respectfully requested that the Commission take the Baron Ranch out of the study of prezoning. Area 6 includes the area north of Sweetwater Road, and including property belonging to General Good, from the westerly boundary of Bonita Woods, along Sweetwater Road north of Bonita Mesa. This includes Lomacitas, Orchard Hill area and Williams Ranch. Mr. Jack Hillier, living on Orchard Hill Road, stated that he wished to correct a statement which he believed was in error concerning a petition submitted by the residents of Bonita Woods and the area referred to as Orchard Hill, which requested a buffer area of one-acre lots on the west side with the balance in 20,000 sq. ft. lots--not 15,000, as previously stated. He asserted the Orchard Hill area is deed restricted to one-acre lots, and he felt the Williams Ranch should be included as one-half acre zone. He asked about two R-l-15 areas located north and west of R-E-40. Planning Director Warren explained that the Sweetwater Valley Planning Committee had established a basic gross population toward which to work. With this in mind the staff recommended placing higher density on the more level areas which could be developed without intensive grading. This was also applied where large areas were under one ownership so the developer could put higher density lots on the level areas and save the rough terrain as open space. -4- 3/19/69 Mrs. Richard Payne, 3836 Alameda Way, stated that she lives in Lomacitas, and immediately across the freeway it is now in the city of San Diego with extremely high density. She would not desire to see the area zoned less than R-l-15, but certainly does not want it developed as the land across the freeway in San Diego. Mr. Albin Marn, 4809 Butternut Hollow Lane, in Bonita Woods area, was particularly concerned with R-l-15 applied just west of Bonita Woods area, pointing out that one acre lots were already developed to the west, half-acre lots developed in Bonita Woods, and now R-l-15 crops up between. He asserted that 90% of the people, both east and west, stated objection to this type of zoning. Mr. Frank Krall, 4816 Butternut Hollow Lane, maintained the Williams property should be zoned the same as adjoining area (R-E). Mr. John Kingsland, 4843 Butternut Hollow Lane, commented that he lives in the area that is R-E, half-acre lots. He purchased there because he wanted a large lot, and feels that people in these areas purchased land there because they want nature to be preserved. Planning Director Warren pointed out that half-acre lots are not necessarily the answer to preserving the natural topography, citing the drainage problems and barren slopes that resulted from extensive grading for half-acre lots in the Bonita Bel Aire subdivision. Mr. A1 Vitek, 5289 Canterbury Drive, spoke of development plans for the Williams Ranch stating they wish to do this in a manner compatible to the adjoining area. It is their intention to place half-acre lots on the western boundary and offer these to the adjoining property owner. They propose to grade only to prepare a pad for a building site, and have directed their engineers to design a bridle path. Mr. Dale Lawson, Orchard Hill, commented that several remarks have been made about retaining undeveloped property as it is. It is evident that it will be developed, but with a buffer strip around the edge, people who purchased those one-acre lots would do so knowing the adjoining land was zoned for smaller lots. Mr. Paul Miller, 335 E Street, spoke representing the Williams Estate, maintaining they are faced with the fact the property has to be sold due to the taxes. It is their desire to cooperate with neighbors and friends of the Williams family. Mr. Jerry Massey, 4801 Butternut Hollow Lane, reiterated that most of the people in Bonita Woods and west of Bonita Woods moved into the area to obtain the spacious- ness of half-acre lots or above. The introduction of 15,000 sq. ft. lots will destroy the rural atmosphere in the area and the intent of the people who bought. He stated he could not agree with developers who state the topography is adaptable to 10,000 and 15,000 ft. lots. He requested that the Williams Ranch remain in R-E zoning. Area 7 is comprised of the Valley floor and recommended for A-8 zoning. There were no comments from the floor concerning this area. This completed the entire Sweetwater Valley and the public hearing was declared closed. -5- 3/19/69 The Commissioners felt they should discuss the plan area by area before taking action on any portion of the plan. Area 1: No objections were presented from the floor and the zoning proposed seems appropriate. Area 2: Member Stewart commented that he could see no need for additional commercial zoning at this time. The area designated R-3-T is presently zoned R-2-A in the County. If development plans are presented which show a need for additional commer- cial zoning it could be changed at that time. Area 3: The Commission felt this was logical zoning and no objection has been expressed. Area 4: The Commissioners were of the opinion the zoning proposed for the Sunnyside area follows the use established there and that no more of that area should be excluded from the overall plan for the Sweetwater Valley. Area 5: Member Chandler commented that he would not want to make a decision on the R-l-15 zoning for the Baron Ranch property before the residents of that area had been notified of the zoning proposed and given an opportunity to express their feelings. Area 6: Member Adams commended the developers for their proposal to offer half-acre boundary lots to adjacent owners if they desire to purchase them. Member Stewart pointed out that since property prices have gone up there must be some compromise to allow development on smaller parcels. Member Rice expressed concern that establishing a buffer zone around the boundary would be setting a dangerous precedent, and felt this could better be controlled by making the zoning contingent upon approval of a subdivision map. Area 7: The zoning proposed seems appropriate for the Valley floor. The Commission then discussed the various courses of action which might be taken. It was felt that since a hearing is pending on March 24 for prezoning of the Williams Ranch, no action should be taken on that particular area prior to that hearing. MSUC (Adams-Putnam) That the public hearing be reopened only for testimony concerning the prezoning on the Baron Ranch property. MSUC (Stewart-Chandler) To continue the public hearing to the meeting of April 7. MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) Meeting be adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ei;~-~; ~apes ~2~"~--/ Acting Secretary