Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1975/06/03 Item 12 Item No. 12 Ordinance 1626 June 3, 1975 • , AGEVDA ITEDf N0. 1'��"� [ l CHULA VISTA CITY COIJNCIL DfEETING OF: June 3, 1975 ITED1 TITLE: An Ordinance 1626 of the City of Chula Vista Amending Section 33.535A of the zoning ordinance of the City of Chula Vista relating to fraternity and sorority houses. INITIATED BY: City Clerk's Office BACKGROUND This ordinance had its first reading on hfay 27, 1975 . It is now ready for second reading and adoption. ATTACIiED: Resolution [ ] Qrdinance [X] Agreement [ ] Plat [ ] See EXHIBITS [X] No.1;2-3-4 Financial Statement: Commission-Board Recommendation: Department Head Recommendation: Refer the subject of uses appropriate in the C-B District to staff with direction to �aork closely with the Downtoian Association to consider the formulation of an amendment to the C-B District regulations . City Manager Recommendation: Concur � t�y • - AGENDA' ITEM N0. [3�Z� ' CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF: Mdy 27', 1975 Public hearing - Consideration of amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to communal households ITEDi TITLE: >-Ordinance - Deleting subsection 11 from Sec. 33.535 A and amending subsection 10 of Sec. 33.535 A to indicate that fraternities and sororities are undesirable in the R-1 zone but appropriate in the R-3 zone INITIATED BY: Director of Planning BACKGROUND: Pag�of the attached report to the Planning Commission details the background on this item. The remainder of that report describes the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance as they pertain to cortununal households. The report also describes each of the co�nunal households known to exist in Chula Vista and presents other informa- tion pertinent to the issue. Testimony presented at the Planning Cortonission'.s April 23, 1975 Meetin 1 . At the April 23rd Planning Cortunission meeting, much testimony was offered in favor of amending the Zoning Ordinance• to allow cortununal households in the R-1 zone. The bulk of the testimony was offered by residents of the various cormnunal house- holds and persons associated with the First Baptist Church, but favorable testimony was also given by other persons, including persons living near the coimnunal households. In the days preceding the April 23rd Planning Cormnission hearing, petitions bearing the signatures of 1443 persons, including 257 persons residing within 300 feet of a cortmunal household, were submitted in support of an ordinance change. 2. Considerable testimony in opposition to the establishment of cortonunal households in the R-1 zone of Chula Vista was also submitted at the Cormnission' s public hearing of April 23, 1975. The opposition expressed concern that cormnunes would tend to erode the environmental quality and land-use stability of the R-1 zone, and stressed the strong interrelationship between said quality and stability and the quality of Chula Vista's neighborhoods. Petitions containing 354 signatures opposing an ordin- ance change have been received. • (continued on supplemental page) ATTACHED: Resolution [ ] Ordinance [g ] Agreement [ ] Plat [ ] . See EXHIBITS [g] No. 1,2,3,4 Financial Statement: Commission-Board Recommendation: . On April 23, 1975 the Planning Comn95sion voted 5-2 to recortunend that the Zoning Ordinance not be amended to allow communal households in the R-1 zone and that Sec. 33. 535 A 10 and 11 be amended to indicate that fraternities and sororities be considered as undesirable uses in the R-1 zone. Department Head Recommendation: ConCUr City Manager Recommendation: Concur ��� • - AGENDA ITEM NO.� 3a,b' � Supplemental Page No. 2 SUMMARY OF MAJOR ISSUES As is frequentl.y the case with land use planning issues, good arguments exist for both sides of the question: Staff' s investigation of the matter and testimony offered at the two public hearings have� brought forth the points noted below. 1 . Arguments in favor of amendinq the Zonin Ordinance to allow comnunal . households in the R-1 zone. . a. Staff's invest�9ation of the 13 cormnunal households indicates that they are quiet, well maintained �homes which appear to be compatible with neigh- boring single family homes. Testimony offered at the Planning Cortanission meetings confirms this observation with the exception of the occasional existence of onstreet parking problems. b. The corrnnunal households provide an important. community service to persons who require special rehabilitative attention in order to cope with•particular problems. c. Requiring the existing co�nunal households to relocate to the R-3 zone may work a financial hardship on them. d. Under the conditional use permit procedure, the location, size and other characteristics of�a communal household could be regulated. 2. Arguments in favor of not amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow cormnunal households in the R-1 zone. a. Since the average household size in Chula Vista is 3.7 persons (1970 census) and the average occupancy of the cortmunal households is approxi- mately ll persons, the cortununal households represent a substantially more intensive use than �is typical in the R-1 zone. Such intensive uses are more appropriate in the R-3 zones than in the R-1 zone. b. Substantial areas in Chula Vista are zoned R-3 but are developed primarily with single family homes. Thus, the supply of single family homes available for this use in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance is quite large. c. Should the ordinance be amended it would be difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish at �the use permit application stage, the "good" :corrmwnes from the "bad" ones. Such distinction, even if it could be made, may not be legally supportable. d. The R-1 zone has historically been the most protected zone because of the inability of single family homes to withstand unplanned incursions from more intensive uses. The downward sliding of a single family residential area can be a very subtle and gradual occurrence at the outset. e. Families purchasing a home in a suburban cormnunity such as Chula Vista generally expect�neighboring families to be similar to their own and are resentful of dissimilar uses. f. Once a single family home is enlarged in order to accomnodate a cormnunal �household, the enlarged �structure will tend to attract other cormnunal households even after a given cormnunal household may have ceased occupying it. Thus, a "living intensity" greater than is normally expected in the R-1 zone tends to be perpetuated. g. Liberalization of the Zoning Ordinance to allow cortununal households could result in an influx of such households into the city. h. The United States Supreme Court, in Baraas v. Village of Belle Terre, recently upheld a municipal ordinance which prohibited the establishment of cortununes in single-family residential districts. This decision recognized �, local government' s power (and responsibility) to protect residential neigh- ,} borhoods from the incursion of erosive uses, and its authority to promote order and residential stability. ' " AGENDA 17EM N0. 3'a�b . � Supplemental Page No. 3 CONCLUSIONS The decision as to whether or not to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow correnunal households as conditional uses in the R-1• zone is a difficult one. . If no such households now .existed in the cortenunity and the problem were considered in the abstract, it is clear �that staff's recoimnendation would be to not change the ordin- ance. However, the actual experience with communal households over the years indicates that they cause few problems and, indeed, are supported by many persons living nearby. All things considered, however, staff believes that the character of the R-1 zones can best -be preserved� by encouraging cortrtnunal households to locate in the R-3 zones. � V