Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1971/08/30 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA August 30, 1971 The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California was held on the above date beginning at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: Rice, Stewart, Adams, Chandler, Macevicz, Hillson and Rudolph. Also present: Director of Planning Warren and Senior Planner Williams. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Adams-Rice) Approval of the minutes of the meeting of August 23, 1971, as mailed. PUBLIC HEARING - PREZONING - Proposed Sweetwater Valley Annexation Senior Planner Williams pointed out that on March l, 1971 the Local Agency Formation Commission approved the proposal for annexation of the Sweetwater Valley to the City of Chula Vista, and it is the policy of the City to prezone all properties prior to annexation. In an effort to retain the identi~ and rural atmosphere desired by the residents of the Valley, the Mayor invited approximately 44 people to serve on a Planning and Prezoning Committee. Unfortunately less than half this number served on a regular basis. The Planning Department staff met with this committee at approximately 2 week intervals from March 18 to August 5. As a result of the study and efforts of this committee a prezoning plan and concept plan were prepared. Mr. Williams presented a map showing the proposed prezoning which closely follows the existing County zoning and land use and is designed to retain the low density character of the valley. Mr. Williams also presented a map depicting the concept plan which is designed to serve as a guide in the development of the Valley between the time of annexa- tion and the adoption of a community plan. The concept expands existing develop- ment patterns and maintains the basic character of the community through the following: a. Residential densities range from 1 to 17 units per gross acre. b. Multiple family development is limited to Bonita Road in the vicinity of commercial development. c. The area east of Acacia Avenue, and south of Central Avenue, is proposed as a rural area with one dwelling unit per 8 acres or less. This area is currently undeveloped and distant from urban development and services. The Committee feels that this area should not be developed until more detailed planning studies have been conducted and plans adopted. -2- 8/30/71 The concept also includes the following principles to be used in development of the Valley: 1. Limit commerce to Valley needs. 2. Preserve existing secluded residential areas. 3. Residential developments should utilize rolled berms instead of standard curbs and gutters. Where walks are required, something other than concrete should be utilized. 4. Consideration should be given to types of street furniture that will be consistent with development of a rural character. 5. Design subdivisions - respecting topography, assigning density on level areas, leaving canyons undeveloped where possible, and using canyons to tie open spaces in the Valley together where possible. 6. Concentrate multiple residential densities around commercial areas and existing areas of the same use. 7. Subdivisions, commercial facilities, etc., should preserve existing vegeta- tion that is indigenous to the area and desirable to preserve, particularly mature trees. 8. All commercial facilities should be designed to architecturally conform to the rustic characteristics of the area. 9. Develop the flood plain in a manner consistent with its use as a recreational resource with both public and private development. 10. Roads should be designed to meander along the natural topography as much as possible. 11. Study alignment of freeway (San Miguel) with primary concern to be the preser- vation of the scenic quality of the area. Also pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle crossings should be provided. 12. Provide an interconnecting system of trails throughout the Valley. Mr. Williams advised that the staff recommends the adoption of the prezoning plan and the concept plan to be used as a guide in considering changes and future development. The staff, however, recommends reconsideration of retaining multiple family residential and a portion of the commercial zoning which the County has granted adjacent to South Bay Freeway north of Bonita Woods. The total area involved is approximately 104.4 acres, with 11.6 acres zoned for commercial use, which the staff would reduce to 5 acres to accommodate a neighborhood shopping center and increase the multiple family area to 57.2 gross acres. The staff recommends R-3-G zoning which would permit approximately 822 dwelling units rather than the 1,768 permitted by the County R-3 zoning currently approved for the area. The Chairman declared the public hearing open and asked for the comments of Mr. James Miller, Chairman of the Sweetwater Valley Planning and Prezoning Committee. 8/30/71 Mr. Miller introduced the following members of the Committee who were in attendance at the meeting: Phyllis Foster, Pat Spies, Ed Mace, George Prussell, Lucy Holtquist, Gale Burkey, and Bob Henschel. Mr. Miller presented the committee's recommendations for the implementation of the zoning plan. These included utilization of the flood plain on the floor of the valley as a major open space and recreational area. In the event the County does not develop a regional park in this area, the Committee recommends that the City adopt a special zone for that area which might be called a Planned Recreational Resource Zone. The purpose of that zone would be to permit the individual property owner to develop a plan for the use of his property which would be a profitable plan and yet oriented to recreational use. Listed as possible uses were: Parks, golf courses and driving ranges, nurseries for trees and plants, publicly owned recreation facilities, miniature golf course, day campgrounds and picnic areas, riding and boarding stables, fishing ponds and hatcheries, tennis clubs, archery range and private swimming club. The Committee also recommends the acquisition of additional neighborhood parks and of all weather pedestrian and bicycle paths to provide access to parks and public schools. They also recommend that development be undertaken in a manner to maintain topo- graphical features, limit the amount of grading, preserve trees and natural ground cover. The Committee further recommends a system of equestrian trails throughout the Valley and the adoption of a Community Council concept. Concerning the staff recommendation for retaining commercial and multiple family zoning at the northerly extremity of Dolan Canyon, Mr. Miller reported that the Committee had considered leaving this zoning as established by the County but their investigation revealed that the County had given protective zoning for one year, and the subdivider must develop the land within that time or the zoning expires. The Committee felt since the topography of this land was no different than the surrounding area, there is no justification or need for applying the commercial and multiple family zoning. They recommend that it be included in the R-E zone the same as the surrounding area. They felt there is sufficient commercial zoning in the vicinity to serve the residents of the Valley. Member Chandler raised a question as to the length of time remaining under the County zoning before it expires. Senior Planner Williams advised that the zoning in question was adopted on March 12, 1970, and the subdivider was given two years in which to file a final subdivision map to implement the zoning. The Commission discussed the nearby commercial zoning and also the development of the Flood Plain area for recreational use. Mrs. William A. Spies, Bonita, advised that she was familiar with the original plans of the developers for the commercial and residential development north of Bonita Woods. The plan approved by the County in granting this zoning was for 52.2 acres of E-1-A and 40.6 gross acres of R-3. The developer's agreement was that there would be about 398 units in the whole area and Mrs. Spies questioned 8/30/71 the staff's report that the County zoning allowed 1768 units and their recommendation to allow 822 dwelling units which would be twice the number permitted on the original plan. Chairman Stewart advised that the staff would check to see if development plans have been approved by the County, and if these plans limit the development to a stipulated number of units. George Prussell, Bonita, reported that he was formerly project manager for California Terraces. He advised that the total commercial area for that project is 57 acres which is divided into two major shopping centers, one on the north side of the project and one on the south side. The one on the south side is about 28 acres and envisions a leasehold by Sears, J. C. Penney, Broadway, Lucky Stores supermarket and the satellite units. He felt this major shopping center would be adequate to serve the contemplated residential development on the north side of the Bonita Valley. Carmen Pasquale, partner in Otay Land Company, called attention to 648 acres included in this prezoning plan which has been previously prezoned P-C for the Otay Land Company. He asked if this plan duplicates the prezoning already adopted by the City Council for that property, and received assurance it is the same. L. E. Morrison, 5103 Sweetwater Road, spoke of his property between Central and the San Miguel bridge and stated that he holds a special use permit from the County for their sand and gravel operation. Chairman Stewart assured him this operation could remain as a nonconforming use in the event of annexation to the City. Mr. Morrison spoke of his plans for a commercial recreation area and asked if the property could be zoned for that use. Director of Planning Warren commented that if the City follows the committee's recommendation and adopts a recreation zone to apply to the flood plain area, Mr. Morrison's proposed use would likely come under that zoning. Under the present Zoning Ordinance it would require a conditional use permit in the A-8 zone. Mr. Janosik, 6645 Jonel Way, Bonita, reported that he has a mobile home park permit for a 20 acre parcel included in the proposed A-8 prezoning. Since this permit was issued the County has zoned the property L-C. Chairman Stewart expressed the opinion that an existing land use could not be taken away by the City through annexation. Director of Planning Warren commented that the staff will check into the present zoning of Mr. Janosik's property. Mr. Beckett, Beckett Ranch, 3945 Alta Loma Drive, Bonita, reported that he operates a public horse stable in the Valley next to Bradley's stable on a conditional use permit from the County. He asked if this use is permitted in the A-8 Zone. -5- 8/30/71 Director of Planning Warren advised that the staff would check this out and would contact Mr. Beckett. Mr. L. E. Morrison spoke of plans for putting in a fishing and recreation area, this would include extending the channel. He asked if this development would be permitted under the contemplated zone. Mr. Warren felt this would be permitted in the recreation zone. As no one else wished to speak, for or against, the public hearing was closed. In discussion the Commission felt it would be desirable to continue consideration of this prezoning in order to obtain further information on some of the unresolved questions, and it was determined the public hearing should be held open until that meeting. Chairman Stewart declared the public hearing reopened for a continuance. MSUC (Rice-Chandler) Continue the public hearing on the prezoning of Sweetwater Valley to the meeting of September 20, 1971.. Director's Report Mr. Warren advised that a workshop dinner meeting has been set for September 13, at 7:30 at Christie's Restaurant. This meeting will be advertised. Mr. Warren recommended that the regular Commission meeting scheduled for September 27 be cancelled due to the League of California Cities Annual Conference in San Francisco from September 26 through September 29. MSUC (Adams-Chandler) The Commission meeting regularly scheduled for September 27 be cancelled. Members Stewart, Adams and Rudolph indicated they would be attending the League conference. Commission Comments Member Macevicz reported that he has been approached by a spokesman for residents of the area concerning the variance request for the development of two lots on East J Street. He stated the residents have conceded there is no objection to two houses but they feel the architecture should be in keeping with the neighbor- hood, and a 3 story house would not be in conformance with the area. Members Rudolph and Rice expressed the opinion that while the owner indicated a tri-level floor plan it would result only in two story height at street level. Director of Planning Warren pointed out that one of the conditions was for approval of architectural design by the Planning Department, and if desired the plans could be presented to the Planning Commission for approval. MSUC (Adams-Macevicz) Architectural design and floor plans for development of two lots in the 200 block of East J Street be presented to the Plannin9 Commission for approval prior to development. MSUC (Hillson-Macevicz) The meeting be adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Secretary ~'~f%/~:'