Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1975/04/22 Item 10 Item No. 10 april 22, 1975 Ordinance No. 1619 AGE\DA ITE�1 N0. [ 10 ] CHULA VISTA CITY COUVCIL �tEETING OF: April 22, 1975 ITEM Ti'rLE: Ordinance No. 1619 - Amending the Building Line Map to change the front setback from 20' to 15' on the west side of Fifth Avenue and from 30' to 15' on the east side of Fifth Avenue between E Street and Flower - Second reading and adoption INITIATED BY: Director of Planning BACKGROUND On April 15, 1975 Council held a public hearing to consider this amendment to the Building Line Map and placed the ordinance on first reading. It is now before the Council to be placed on second reading and adopted. ATTACIIED: Resolution [ ] Ordinance [ ] Agreement [ ] Plat [ ] See EXHIBITS [ ] No. Financial Statement: Commission-Board Recommendation: Department ttead Recommendation: place ordinance on second reading and adopt. City Manager Recommendation: Concur 1� ' AGENDA ITEPI N0. [ Sa ] CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL DtEETI\G OF: April 15, 1975 Public hearing - Consideration of change of front setback from 20' and 30' to 15' for both sides of Fifth Avenue between E Street and Flower I'rE�� 'ri'r[.E: Ordinance - Amending the Building Line Map to change the front setback from 20' to 15', on the west side of Fifth Avenue and from 30' to 15' on the :.east side of Fifth Avenue between E Street and Flower NITiaTED aY: Director of Planning BACKGROUND A property owner on the east side of Fifth Avenue, who is proposing an apartment . complex, has requested that the existing setbacks of 30' and 20' along the east and west sides of Fifth, respectively, be reduced to 15' on each side. His request is based on the premise that the R-3 zoning regulations require only 15' and furthermore, that the 20' wide parkways on this block of Fifth Avenue make the additional 20' and 30' setbacks unnecessary. The Planning Corrnnission found this reasoning to be valid� and has recommended approval . The staff report to the Planning Co�mnission and pertinent exhibits are enclosed. ATTACHED: Resolution [ ] Ordinance [ � Agreement [ ] Plat [ ] See EXHIBITS [X] No. 1,2,3 Financial Statement: Commission-Board Recommendation: The Planning Cortenission voted 7-0 on March 26, 1975 recortmending revision of the Building Cine Map to provide for a building setback of 15' on both sides of Fifth Avenue between E Street and flower Street. Department Head Recommendation: Concur City Manager Recommendation: Concur ,,y L ' � � , ' . � /./ / VV � . Page 6 City Planning Commission ����'� Agenda Items for t4eeting of March 26, 1975 � � 6 . PUBL?C HEARItdG: PCZ-75-B, Re uest for chan e in front setback from 20' and 30 to 1 fcr both sides of Fifth Avenue 00 b ock between E Street and Floti•rer, Eugene York A. BACKGROUPlD 1 . The applicant is proposing to construct an apartment complex at 160 Fifth Avenue, adjacent to the lot at the southeast corner of Flower and Fifth in the R-3 zone. While the applicant is desirous of a change in setback only on his property, the staff advised the applicant to include all of the properties on . both sides of Fifth Avenue betweer, Flower and E Street. Therefore, the applicant has submitted his request to change the setback lines as provided in Sec. 33.1201 , paragraph �, of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. 4lhereas the building line map sho�as a 30' setback on the east side of fifth and 20' on the aiest side, the R-3 zone regulations require a 15' setback. All properties included under this request are zoned R-3. 3. This request is categorically exempt (Class 5 a) from the provisions of CEQA 1970, as amended. ' B. ANALYSIS 1 . Zoning, Land Use, and Setbacks. a. The properties affected by this request, as well as those in the block to -the north, are all zoned R-3; the block south of E Street is zoned R-1 . b. As sho��m on the Locator map, the front yard setbacks, as established by the building line map, on the north and south extensio��s of Fifth Avenue, are as follows: East Side West Side North of Flovier (R-3 zone) 20' �— South of E (R-1 ) 30' 20' As mentioned in the background portion of this report, the zoning regulations for the R-3 district require only a 15' setback, however, in cases of conflict the building map takes precedence. 2. Actual Setbacks. As sho�an on Exhibit A, the existing development in the 100 block of Fifth Avenue, bet�aeen Flower and E Street, consists of single family homes, with the exception of a church at the northeast corner of F.ifth and E. The church was granted a variance in 1961 to reduce its setback on Fifth from 30' to 3' 5". Al1 other structures on the east side of Fifth observe the 30' setback as presentl,y required. On the �vest side, building setbacks range from 10' to 20' as compared to the 20' presently required by the buildino line map. � 3. Land _Use Implications. This request �aas initiated by one property o�•mer who desires to develop a lot which extends from Bright�vood through to Fifth Avenue. P;o response, pro or • City Planning Corrmission � Page 7 ' Agenda Items for t•teeting of March 26, 1975 ' con, have been received to the public notice from other property owners on the street. In the absence of any response by residents of the area, staff regards this request as having merit. The property lines on both sides of Fifth Avenue are 20' from the curb line, due to the wider than normal parkway bet�aeen the street and side�•ialk. This parkway is over 10' oride, ��rhereas in ne�•ier develop- ments there are no park���ays. Therefore, with the existing setbacks along this block, the effective distance from the curbed travel�aay to the building is 40' on the aiest side and 50' on the east side. If the request is approved for 15' setbacks, the distance from the curb to future buildings would be 35' on both sides, compared to 25'± (typically) in ne�•�er R-3 areas, �•ihere the property lines are traditionally closer to the.street. C. FINDINGS 1 . Cood zoni� praetice reqvtires the change requested. The 10' wide parko-iay in the 100 block of Fifth Avenue beto-�een E and Flower serves effectively as a setback since it results in the property line being 20' from the curb. In this instance, the 20' and 30' front yard setbacks, in _addition to the 20' property line setback, are not considered necessary to protect the open vi.sta of the street. Even ���ith the reduced � setback of 15' , as allo�•ied by the R-3 zone, future buildings on the block would be located considerably further back from Fifth Avenue than �aould buildings in ne:•rer R-3 zoned areas. This portion of Fifth Avenue is not included in the required circulation ela�2nt, therefore, future a�idening of the road is not foreseen at this time. The 15 ' setback would establish a consistent setback for this portion of Fifth Avenue and o-iould conform to the standards set forth in the R-3 zoning regulations. . Z. The requested chmege is consistent Lrith the Chula Vista General Plcm. Since the -request to reduce setback lines does not affect the basic R-3 zoning or densities, or the lot sizes, the General Plan, �•�hich designates this area as "High Density Residential 13-26 DU/Acre," is not affected. _ D. RECOP1MEIJDATION Adopt a motion recortunending that the City Council adopt a change in the building line map (PCZ-75-B) reducing the front yard setbacks on both sides of the 100 block of Fifth Avenue bet�aeen Floa�er and E Street from 30' to 15' on the east side; and 20' to 15' on the o-iest side. • � .��- I � I ' 1 I I � I ! I I � � � � i ' � I i ' I i � 1 - � �� D�� STREET � ; ; ; : _ , � , i ; ; LOCATOR - - - - - - -,- �- -- -- - - - , \/� W ! I � PCZ-75-B /5 SETBACK�,� � � i � REOUCE FkONT-YDr - ___ _ , __ _ I � - I I � SET6ACKS FROM 30� 9 20� TO I5�-IOO�BLK - � , i � 51h 'A��E. i - - - 20 SET C I i ; � ' , i i i - - - - - - -� � � � I � ' ' � � -----� I � / � I � 1 - - - - W -----� � � _� � ' c/: � � j � - - - - > ---- w I Q � ; � � Q , Q � J - f I I � � � _ - __r_'! � � 4-. � I I I I . 1 � I � . 1 � I I j I 1 I � 1 � � . , I I I I 1 1 � . I I I I � � I I I I I � FLOWER STREET , i � , � ; , , . � I I 1 � I I I MFD TFD � � i . ' I I i ; ���Th � � � � �zo`.sEre.a KFD sFO Q — � � � � i i � � - - - ; • . � , , , 0� � 100� i200� I I � I � SFD 30�SETBACri . I� ' � I SFD 9FD SFD � t I � � ' � I I � I I — I I i ' � sFo - � - T -' - - I- � - I -i- J -_r - I- -r-�D- oM �Pe � L7 � I� il I � �- -- - �� O i 1 � ; SFD � I I I ' � � ' i- r' - � � —I� 1 � ' � 3FpjSFp � 1� � � I � I - i - r f I piUl2CH _ T _ ' 1 I i � I � � TFD I � - 7 - L _ y � � � I � ~ � � ' - I � � I ' � I � i . � SFD-y 1 � I �y � � I . � I I I I � ' (_ I � L.L I � � I � � � � ' � - 'I 1 i � � � � � " E�� . STREET I � ! , � w � � � � , _ � , ; �� , o � Q ' - � � - - - - U � � 3�� SETBA � -- � . �20� ScTBApC � i � . -R� ,� - 0 J ,�� - - - - W - � , , , DAVIDSO� STREET _______� , , . . : . i . �L01�IER � ,�{ STP,EET i f�i �'1 I EXISTING __� ' " PROPOSED � ' � SETBACK , SETBACK � � " I � ; �-EXlSTIN6 SETBACK I I I ' I I � I I -.� - PROPOSED SETBACK � � I ' i i � I � - - - � � ' � I I I I ' � � I - - i � � � I � — , , � � ; ; , , � � � � I I ' , � . , , � , � � � - - - , , I � ' ' � � � � , � � I � r - - -� � ; � , . I I I - - - i CURB ; ' � i r ' � ' � � � � � � � � i / � � � � I � _ _ , ' � � . I I � i I - ' ' � � �� � � I I ' i � � _� i I - -i � I I � �. "°R� I� I � � — � ' � o� �� eo� � I � � � EXHIBiT A I � � - . I PCZ-75-B , I REDUCE FRONT'YD. � I I I � � SETB(�CKS FftOM 30 � . � , � @ 20 TO 15-lOOBIJC. � 5th AVE. 11 � It ' ��p��� 1"'( I � � � . , - _ RESOLUTION N0. PCZ-75-B _ � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING CON�ISSION RECOMMEPIDING TO �� � THE CiTY COUNCIL THE CHANGE OF FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR � ' PROPERTIES ON BOTH SIDES OF FIFTH AVENUE BETWEEN FLOWER STREET AND E $TREET FROM 30' AND 20' TO 15'. ���Qy � y5 WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a change of front yard setback � � was filed with the Planning Department on the 7th day of March, 1975,- Document No. PCZ-65-B, and WHEREAS, said application requested that the front yard setback on the . east side of Fifth Avenue between Flower Street and E Street be changed from 30 feet to 15 feet, and on the west side of Fifth Avenue from 20 feet to 15 feet, and WHEREAS, this request is categorically exempt (Class 5 a) from the provisions of CEQA 7970, as amended, and HHEREAS, the Planning Comnission set the time a�d place for a hearing on said application, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by the publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 10 days prior to the date of said hearing, and . WHEREAS, a hearing was held at said .time and place, namely 7.:00 p.m., Wednesday, March 26, 7975, Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Comnission, and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 7. From facts presented to the Cortmission, the Cortmission finds that public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice require the change of front yard setback from 30 feet and 20 feet to 15 feet for both sides of Fifth Avenue between Flower Street and E Street. 2. The findings of fact in support of said determination are as follows: a. The 10 ft.+ wide parkway in the 100 block of Fifth Avenue, between E Street and D Street, serves effectively as a setback since it results in the property line being'20 feet from the curb. The 20 foot and 30 foot front yard setbacks, in addition to the 20 foot property line . setback, are not necessary to protect the open vista of the street. With the reduced setback of 15 feet, as allowed by the R-3 zone, future buildings on the block would be located further back from � Fifth Avenue than buildings in newer R-3 zoned areas. b.. This portion of Fifth Avenue is not included in the required circulation element; therefore, future widening of the street is �� � not foreseen. c. The 75 foot setback would establish a consistent setback for this � portion of Fifth Avenue and would conform to the standards set fiorth in the R-3 zoning regulations. d. Since the request to reduce setback lines does not affect the basic R-3 zoning, densities, or lot sizes, the General Plan, which designates this area as "High Density Residential 13-26 DU/Acre," is not affected. 3. The Planning Cortmiission recomnends to the City Council that said reclassification be granted: 4. That this resolution be transmitted, along with the a�plication to the City Council, and a copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the applicant. PASSED and APPROVED by the CITY PLANNIN6 COh�fISSION of CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 26th day of March, 1975, by the fallowing vote, to-wit: AYES: Cononissioners Rudolph, Floto, Starr, Chandler, Smith, Rice and Pressutti NOES: None DABSENT: None ' ' ' . I /�i�v _'1 A �i `-'�I�'i{� I ' Chai rnian ATTEST: � � �/`/ °e�t�p_ Secre ary LI � . .