HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1987/09/01 Item 15COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
• Item 15
Meeting Date 9/1/87
ITEM TITLE: Urgency Ordinance~oZ~9 To place a moratorium prohibiting
establishment of cardrooms within the Montgomery annexation
area pending adoption of the Montgomery Specific Plan PCM 88-9
SUBMITTED BY: Planning Director ~~~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes X No )
The Planning Department has received recent inquiries by existing and
prospective operators of cardrooms, to their operation within various
commercial zoned areas in Montgomery. In reviewing these requests, it has
become apparent that the County's zoning ordinance currently in effect in
Montgomery and the City's zoning ordinance differ in that a use permit is not
required in Montgomery if a cardroom is placed in a general or heavy
commercial zone. In many cases, without the requirement for a major use
permit, there is no opportunity for adequate review of the proposed site or
placement of appropriate conditions of approval by staff, neither is there an
opportunity to review and comment by surrounding property owners and the
public.
• RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council enact a 90-day moratorium prohibiting
the establishment of cardrooms at any location within the Montgomery
annexation area, and further, that a public hearing be held at the end of the
90-day period to consider extension of the moratorium until implementation of
the Montgomery Specific Plan.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Due to the time sensitivity of such an
urgency measure, and acknowledging the need for additional study, this item
has not been reviewed by either the Montgomery Planning Committee or the
Planning Commission.
DISCUSSION:
The City has a standard of one cardroom per 40,000 population. The estimated
123,000 population for the City translates into three cardrooms allowed while
the number currently licensed is four. Only three cardrooms are operational
at the present time due to one business having been closed by a fire. The
immediate concern is not whether a cardroom might be reasonably located within
the Montgomery part of Chul a Vista, but the 1 ack of appropriate planning and
zoning review mechanisms in place at this time.
•
' Page 2, Item 15
• Meeting Date 9/1/87
When the annexation of Montgomery took place on December 31, 1985, cardrooms
were not evident within the annexation area. This was due to the fact that
the zoning ordinance for the county, which is still in use on an interim
basis, permits cardrooms in C-36 general commercial zones and C-37 heavy
commercial zones, but the County Code, enforced by the Sheriff's department
did not allow this type of use to be licensed and was therefore prohibited.
The City regulatory system is structured so that cardroom licenses are issued
in accordance with Chapter 5.20 of the Municipal Code, with additional review
afforded through the CUP process. The CUP requirement gives the City an
opportunity to weigh locational factors associated with operation of this
business, such as the proximity of residential uses, potential conflicts with
adjacent commercial uses, and the amount and design of on site parking.
The CUP process cannot be applied in commercial zones within Montgomery
because the ~~lontgomery ordinance permits such use without this review. The
County's intention to prohibit cardrooms cannot be implemented since it was
contained within the County Code and not within the zoning ordinance.
In circumstances where new construction is involved, the design is subject to
Design Review Committee approval. However, central issues regarding the
appropriateness of having a cardroom at a specific location are beyond the
.scope of the Design Review process.
In recent months, staff has received inquiries from two present license
holders pertaining to relocation within the Montgomery area. The last request
became of some concern to staff because of serious questions pertaining to the
lack of review opportunities for a proposal which included lease of space
within an existing bar in relatively close proximity to adjacent residences.
In summary, staff is of the opinion that a moratorium prohibiting cardrooms
for an interim period is appropriate until the Montgomery Specific Plan is
adopted and implemented. The moratorium's urgency status is recommended due
to the substantial risk involved that relocation of a cardroom could be
accomplished without ap propriate review, before input can be obtained
regarding the moratorium by the Montgomery Planning Committee and Planning
Commission.
A public hearing can be scheduled at the end of 90-days to consider extension
of the moratorium for the remainder of the period prior to adoption of the
specific plan, as it appears that implementation may not occur until after
that period.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
WPC 4236P
by the City ^~~ •~ '~ ~f
Chula Vist:~. C~ I~fo•~nia
Dated