Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1974 /05/07 Item 19 Item No. 19 May 7, 1974 Ordinance No. 1531 ' , • . AGENDA ITED1 N0. �' 19 � CHULA VISTA CITY COU\CIL �tEETING OF: MAY 7, 1974 ITED1 TITLE: Ordinance No. 1531 - Amending Sections 33.535, 33.601, 33.801 and 33.901 of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 33, of the Chula Vista City Code relating to mobile home parks - Second reading and adoption INITIATED BY: Director of Planning BACKGROUND This ordinance was placed on first reading at the meeting of April 23, 1974, after holding a public hearing on the matter. ATTACHED: Resolution [ ] Ordinance [ ] Agreement [ ] Plat [ J See EXHIBITS [ ] No. Financial Statement: N.A. Commission-Board Recommendation: Department Head Recommendation: Place ordinance on second reading and adoption. City Dtanager Recommendation: Concur �.yl AGENDA ITErI \0. [ Z ] . ' . .a,b,c, CHULA VISTA CITY COUD7CIL DfEETI\G OF: April 23, 1974 - Public Hearing - Construction of Amendment to Zoning Ordinance and Adoption of Development Policy Relating to Mobile Home ITEhf TITLE: Parks - PCA-73-2 Ordinance - Amending Sections 33 . 535, 33 . 601, 33. 801 and 33.901 of Zoning Ordinance Relating to Mobile Home Parks Resolution - Adopting Development Policy for Mobile Home Parks INITIATED BY: Director of Planning A. BACKGROUND The City Council previously considered this item on November 20, 1973 and referred the matter back to the Planning Commission with a recommendation that several changes be considered. On March 27, 1973 these changes, together with additional staff recommendations were considered by the Planning Commission. B. ANALYSIS 1. Council Recommendations. At the Council hearing of November 20, 1973 several amendments were suggested. The following text sets forth those amendments with staff comments and recommendations. A copy o£ the approved Planning Commission Policy is attached. Amendments suggested by the City Council included: a. "The Planning Commission consider the establishment of the same standards £or density, open space and storage requirements for both small and large Mobile Home Parks . " (1) Density: The original policy provided for a maximum density of 10 units per acre for smaller ,parks (5-10 acres) and 8 units per acre for larger parks (over 10 acres) . (Continued on Supplemental Sheets) ATTACHED: Resolution �{�} Ordinance [X] Agreement [ ] Plat [ ] See EXHIBITS [X] No. i-2-3 Financial Statement: N,A. Commission-Board Recommendation: The Planning Commission (by a vote of 7-0) recommended to the City Council that the Zoning Ordinance be modified in accordance with PCA-73-2 (A) and that the proposed Development Policy for M. H. Parks be adopted, Department Head Recommendation: Concur. City Manager Recommendation: Concur with Department Head �� . . . . ,..�.,..,. . � .... �g b c � ' . Supplementa.l Page •2 Unless a high percentage of spaces within the park are devoted to the smaller spaces (single-wide) , a maximum of 8 units per acre represents the most eguitable figure to use as a standard. The Planning Commission still retains the ability to adjust the density based upon topography, relationship to ad- joining developments and type of mobile home for which the park is designed. (2) Open Space: The original policy provided for a minimum of 250 square feet of open space per unit for smaller parks and 350 square feet per unit for larger parks. If the City is striving for larger parks to make mobile home parks more livable, then 350 square feet of open space is not extravagant'. we presently require 400 square feet of open space for apartment units and planned unit developments. The City' s newest Mobile Home Park, Otay Lakes Lodge, located adjacent to Southwestern College Estates, has approx- imately 630 square feet of open space per unit. The "Site Design Example" exhibit, attached to the Policy, approximates 500 square feet per unit. Based on these figures, the staff recommends that 400 square feet of open space be required, making the parks com- patible with apartments and PUD' s. (3) Common Storage: The policy now provides for 50 square feet of common storage per unit in smaller parks and 100 square feet in larger parks. After reviewing several parks in the Castle Park and Chula Vista area, as well as checking the City of San Diego ordinance, it has been determined that 50 square feet appears to meet the needs of the park user. b. "A minimum percentage of sites be set aside for single- wide coaches. " Both the F.H.A. and City of San Diego Planning Depart- ment were contacted in regard to their views on this re- commendation. In addition, correspondence on this point was received from a representative of the Western Mobile- home Association. The opinion was unanimous that "market demand" should be the only factor involved in determini_ng the size of lots within a mobile home park. The problem with leaving this kind of a decision to market demands is that no one wishes to provide the smaller spaces since the larger spaces offer a type of status symbol for the park. A parallel situation can be found in the single family subdivision field wherein a developer limits his marketing proposal to a basic house design and price scale unless he is reguired to supply a mixture of price ranges. It is the staff' s opinion that the Council suggestion has merit and, based on sales nationally between 1960 and 1970 wherein coaches 14 feet wide or less represented any- where from 84g to 95� of the total market, it is not un- ' reasonable to require that 10$ of the space within the park be designed to accommodate the 14 foot wide or narrower unit. � �, IIULHU/l 1 ILI"I IYU. • . a) )C . , � � . • . Supplemental Page No: 3 . c. "MObile Home Park operators should provide the City Attorney with an up-to-date copy of the lease policy and the rules of operation for their park. " The staff drafted a proposal which would have required that copies of the tenant' s rights beposted- with the City. However, the City Attorney has indicated that his office is reviewing legislation in this area and has determined that such specific requirements should not be involved in this policy document. d. "Consider having tandem parking spaces on the side of the coach rather than allowing parking in the front. " A revision to the parking standards to prohibit parking in the front setback is proposed. This would have the effect of not only encouraging tandem parking spaces on the side of the coach, but also would require the individual parking stalls to be lengthened so that tandem parking o£ two cars could be accomplished behind the front setback. e. "Require larger front and rear setbacks and require variation in front setbacks. " The original policy provided £or a minimum 4 foot front setback and 3 foot rear setback. These setbacks are in- creased to 8 feet and 5 feet respectively in the revised draft. Variation in front setbacks can be accomplished by requiring that the average setback be established at 11 feet and by varying the setbacks from 8 feet to 14 feet throughout the park. The resulting 6 foot variation will provide adequate staggering to relieve the monotonous appear- ' ance common to many mobile home parks. f. "Require additional landscaping in the front yard. " The original policy provided for all areas not devoted to buildings, walkways or parking to be landscaped with a combination of trees, shrubs and ground cover. The policy further provided that not more than 508 of the ground cover shall be of a non-living nature. The additional landscaping desired by Council will come about as a result of the increase in front setback requirements; therefore, no change is recommen- ded in the required percentage. g. "Concern over width of driveways in mobile home parks. " The California Administrative Code enumerates standards for driveway widths for mobile home parks located within the State. The Fire Department concurs that these are adequate and feels that more restrictive standards are unwarranted. State standards are as follows: o Driveway width with no parking on either side - 25 feet o Driveway width with car parking on one side - 32 feet o Driveway width with car parking on both sides - 40 feet o One way drive - 15 feet in clear width To avoid any confusion on this issue it is recommended that these standards be included in the ordinance, with specific review of all 15 foot wide driveways required by the Fire Department. 1 �� �5 ' ' • •AGEP7DA ITEM N0. 2a,b,c �� ' ' Supplemental Page� No. d 2. Proposed Revision to Policy "Procedure" Section. The original policy provided that a developer shall re- quest approval in principle as to location and land use by the Commission and Council prior to filing a formal application for a conditional use permit; and further, that the approval of the land use by the Commission and Council shall not in any way be construed as a commitment by the City to approve a formal application for a conditional use permit. The drawback to this originally recommended procedure is - that both the Planning Commission and City Council will have made certain commitments, either formally or informally, without the benefit o£ a public hearing and by the time a conditional use permit comes before the Planning Commission as a public hearing the public will be informed that the decision of land use has already been studied and the purpose of the hearing is simply to refine the layout of the facility. This kind of process could lead to confusion and misunderstanding on the part of the applicant and the public. Therefore, the staff and Planning Commission are now recommending that an "M" Mobile Home Park Modifying District be established. The advantages of this system are: a. With the additional requirement for a fairly comprehen- sive skeletal plan to accompany the rezoning application, the modifying district would retain the desirable aspect of providing both the Commission and Council with sufficient information on which to base a land use decision. This decision would come as a result of public hearing before both bodies. b. If approved, the applicant would receive a firm land use decision. c. The rezoning application fee would help defer what could be substantial staff review time. d. The proposal would not require a second hearing before the Commission in the form of a conditional use permit applica- tion. e. The "M" Mobile Home Park Modifying District could be attached to existing agricultural and residential zones thereby supplementing, not superseding, uses permitted by the basic zoning. Upon approval of the rezoning, the applicant would be required to submit a precise plan for approval by the Director of Planning. The precise plan would be reviewed in terms of its compliance with the approved skeletal plan, the Development Policy and additional conditions, if any, imposed as a result of the rezoning hearings. �,,�1 �