HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1976/10/26 Item 25 CITY OF CHULA VISTA ITEM N0. _�� �5
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT 10/26/76
FOR MEETING OF-��/���
Public hearing - Consideration of prezoning and rezoning 8.4 acres on the south
ITEM TITLE� side of "L" Street between Fourth and Fifth Avenues from R-1 , R-2 and R-3-G-P
to R-3-P-14
Ordinance#1709 - Amending the zoning map to prezone and rezone approximately
8.4 acres on the south side of "L" St. between 4th and 5th Aves. to R-3-P-14
SUBMITTED BY� Director of Planning
Si GO�,� F;i:f:i�ii�u Af�aU F.t�C�;TION
ITEM EXPLANATION�
A. BACKGROUND
1 . On July 5, 1976 the City Council considered a request for a General Plan Amendment
(GPA-76-1 ) for approxzi�zately 4 acres of land located on the south side of "L" Street
between Fourth and Fifth Avenue from Medium Den�ity Residential (4-12 du/acre) to High
Ct�nsity Residential (13-26 du/acre). Consideration of the General Plan Amendment by the
Planning Commission had resulted in a 3-3 tie vote at its meeting on April 26, 1976. The
City Council voted 5-0 to deny the request and voted 3-2 to have the Planning Commission
consider prezoning this area to R-3-P-12.
2. The Initial Study (IS-76-63) of possible adverse environmental impacts of the
project was conducted by the Environmental Review Committee on August 26, 1976. The
Committee concluded that there would be no significant effects and made a draft Negative
Declaration which was certified by the Planning Commission on September 13, 1976.
(continued on supplemental page)
EXHIBITS ATTACHED es.
Agreement Resolution Ordinance X Plot X Other p��-�h�
Environmental Document: Attached IS-76-63 Submitted on
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
(See next page)
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION� On September 13, 1976 the P1 anni ng Commi ssi on voted
6-0 to recommend that the City Council certify the Negative Declaration and voted 5-1
to recommend the change of prezoning and zoning from R-1 , R-2 and R-3-G-P to R-3-P-14
for the entire area under consideration in accordance with Resolution PCZ-76-L•
COUNCIL ACTION� Ordinance placed on first reading with amendment — 10/12/76 .
(5ee supplemental page 5for more motions. )
Form A-113 (Rev.5-75)
AGENDA ITEM NO.=�;?►� 25
Supplemental Page No. 2
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1 . Adopt a motion finding that in accordance with the Negative Declaration on
IS-76-63 and the findings stated therein, this project will have no significant adverse
environmental impacts and certifying the Negative Declaration.
2. Adopt a motion to approve the following in accordance with the findings stated
in Resolution PCZ-76-L:
a. Prezoning four lots (0.39 acres) located on the east side of Fifth Avenue
south of "L" Street, from R-2 to R-1 ;
b. Rezoning 0.41 acres. located at the southwest corner of Fourth Avenue and
"L" Street, from R-1 to R-3-P-12; and prezoning the remaining area on the
south side of "L" Street between Fourth and Fifth Avenues from R-3-G-P to
R-3-P-12. The R-3-P-T2 zoning areas shall be subject to the following pre-
cise plan development standards and guidelines:
(1 ) Maximum building height - Two story, not to exceed 35 feet.
(2) Setbacks* - Front and exterior sideyards - 25 ft. for one and two
story structures and parking areas.
- Rear yard - Single story structures - 15 ft.
Two story structures adjacent to R-1 zone - 35 ft.
Two story structures adjacent to R-3 zone - 20 ft.
- Side yard - One story adjacent to R-1 zone - 8 ft.
One story adjacent to R-3 zone - 5 ft.
Two story adjacent to R-1 zone - 35 ft.
Two story adjacent to R-3 zone - 10 ft.
*Single story carports may have zero side and rear yard setbacks. All other
accessory buildings shall maintain the required setbacks.
(3) The above standards are considered desirable guidelines which may be
increased or decreased on the basis of the following design factor of
any proposed project:
a) Orientation of buildings with regard to the property line.
b) Location of windows.
c) Length of building frontage along a given property line.
d) Location and type of structure on the adjacent lot.
(4) Usable Open Space
a) 700 sq. ft. of usable open space per unit to be apportioned into
private and common open space as follows:
Ground floor units - 300 sq. ft. priviate open space per unit
Second story units - 100 sq. ft. private open space per unit
Remainder as common usable open space.
b) Yards abutting a street do not qualify as usable open space.
AGENDA ITEM fVO.�r.3� 25
Supplemental Page No. 3
c) Redevelopment of lots under 10,000 sq. ft. in area shall be
encouraged through combination of adjacent lots and removal of
existing structures.
Intensification of the development on individual lots under
10,000 sq. ft. through the addition of a second dwelling unit
shall generally be discouraged; however, it may be permitted
provided the architectural treatment of the two units is matched
and the site plan provides an integrated complex with offstreet
parking and usable open space properly relating to the units. In
order to provide proper architectural matching, the existing
structure may also be required to be modified.
d) In redeveloping within this area, it is recommended that no lots
be permitted to add additional units unless they meet the minimum
65 ft. lot width requirement for the R-3 zone.
B. DISCUSSION
1 . Proposal .
The area for which the General Plan Amendment was requested included only the
easterly 4 acres of the properties lying on the south side of "L" Street between Fourth
and Fifth Avenues. The original prezoning in 1969 included all of the property south
of "L" Street between Fourth and Fifth Avenues and in order to have the zoning consistent,
the staff has expanded the request to cover the entire 8.4 acres.
2. Adjacent zoning and land use.
North R-1 Chula Vista High School
South R-1 & (County)R-1-A Single family dwellings
East R-1 Rice Elementary School
West (County) R-1-A Single family dwelling
3. Existing land use.
The 8.4 acres is divided into 22 parcels with a multiplicity of land uses broken
down as follows:
Single family 12 parcels 12 units
Two family 3 parcels 6 units
Multiple family 3 parcels 12 units (4 units each)
Vacant 2 parcels
Church 2�arcels (1 .59 acres)
Total 22 parcels 30 units
4. Existing zoning and prezoning.
All of the property presently in the County is zoned R-1-A (single family - 6,000
sq. ft. minimum lot size) and the two lots on the southwest corner of Fourth Avenue and
"L" Street in the City are zoned R-1 . The 8 acres in the County was prezoned in
AGENDA I?EM N0. =�r-3� 25
Supplemental Page No. 4
September 1969 to R-3-G-P and R-2 (four lots on Fifth Avenue developed with single
family dwellings) .
5. General P1an.
The General Plan designation on this property and the surrounding properties is
Medium Density Residential (4-12 dwelling units per gross acre) . The subject area
contains a net area of 8.42 acres and a gross area of 10.21 acres (measured to the
centerline of adjoining streets). Based on a gross acreage of 10.21 acres, the
General Plan would allow a maximum of 122 units on the property.
C. ANALYSIS
1 . Adjacent develo�ment is predominantly single family dwellings on standard
6000-7000 sq. ft. lots. The proposed rezoning area is bounded on two sides by an
elementary and high school and a church is centrally located between Fourth and Fifth
Avenues. While the adjacent areas exhibit a stable single family residential character
and reflect conscientious home ownership, some portions of the area proposed for
rezoning and prezoning generally reflect a declining condition and indicate a good
possibiiity for redevelopment in the not too distant future. A number of the lots are
deep and/or large and in their present configuration are not conducive to traditional
single or two family development. The four lots on Fifth Avenue are relatively small ,
averaging approximately 4300 sq. ft. and are already developed with single family
dwellings. Because of their size, present development, and adjacency to existing single
family development, the staff recommends that these four lots should be prezoned R-1
instead of the present R-2. To add another unit on each of these lots would be
impractical and even if the units were removed, the development would be inconsistent
with the regulations and standards of the R-2 zone. If rezoned with the entire area
to R-3-P-12 or R-3-P-14, the area of the lots would not permi��more than one dwelling
unit per lot and any additional development would require consolidation of lots meeting
the minimum lot size requirements.
2. The General Plan recognizes the need to preserve and enhance stable and sound
residential areas. Single family neighborhoods are particularly sensitive to incur-
sions from competing land uses and variations in density and must, therefore, receive
the greatest degree of protection possi6le to preserve stability. Because the 8 acres
presently prezoned R-3-G-P is immediately adjacent to a very well maintained single
family area to the south, the present density without additional constraints on develop-
ment could be disruptive to the environmental character of the area. Council has become
concerned in recent months about the impact of multiple family development on nearby
single family homes. This concern has led to a number of rezonings from R-3 to R-1
and to establishment of the new R-3-L zone which allows 12 dwelling units to the acre.
Additionally, Council has rezoned several properties from R-3-G (17 units per acre) to
R-3-P-12 (12 units per acre} in cases where single family homes are nearby. These
factors point toward a density of 12 units per acre on the subject property.
3. While it is believed that high density residential development is inappro-
priate at this location, it is also believed that redevelopment with traditional
single family dwellings would be unlikely to occur due to the limiting factors of
deep and large lots, present parcel configuration, and location on heavily travelled
arterial streets. These factors also point to a density of approximately 12 units
per acre, which is the maximum density designated by the General Plan, and represents
the recommendation of the staff.
AGENDA ITEM �0. �� 2 5
Supplemental Page No. 5
4. In its recommendation to prezone this entire area to R-3-P-14 rather than
limiting the density to the 12 units per acre recommended by staff, the Planning
Commission received testimony in reference to a proposal by Mrs. Padelford for develop-
ment of a parcel within the area under consideration which indicated a density of
14 units per acre and created a project with amenity and adequate open space. The
Commission concluded that 14 units per acre did not represent a substantial increase over
the 12 recommended.
5. The General Plan, in identifying the upper limit of Medium Density at 12
dwelling units per acre relates to gross acreage and does not subtract land dedicated
to public rights of way. Zoning designations, on the other hand, are related to
actual developable land under private ownership. The factor to convert land area
from gross (no public improvements) to net is an assignment of 20% of the gross acre-
age to public improvements. By this computation, 14 dwelling units per acre for zoning
equates to 11 .2 units per acre for the General Plan, and could be found to be in sub-
stantial conformance with Medium Density Residential . The staff has noted that little
practical difference in realized densities would result between 14 and 12 units per acre
on small parcels due to yard, parking and other requirements. In the case of larger
parcels, however, the actual density achieved will be closer to the high end figure
and more closely approaches the densities designated as "High Density. " If the
R-3-P-14 zone is adopted, the precise plan development standards and guidelines should
be included as herein written.
COUNCIL ACTIONS (continued)
rfotion to approve It was moved by CouncilMan flye!e ancl seconcled by
staff recom�aendation CouncilMan I�gdahl thut the Co!incil appro��e. the �taff
with moclifications recommendation vice the Plannins; Coni�ission on this
matter rr�th thc folloi•ring modifications: 'I'hat on Pac.�
' 2, paragraph 2b under setbacks - to delete. the dual
stanclarcl of side yard and rear yard setblcks "ror pror-
erties acljacent to R-1 and E:-3 zo�ies anJ liave oiie
standard ti•:hich applies to R-1, specifically tiy�here it
says rear yard, tlie raution is, on tlie line t}�at reacis
"two story structures adjacent to P.-1 zone," to cie-
lete the words "ad}acetit to R-1 zone" leaving t;ie
wording to read "Tv:o story strticr.ures - 35 feet" and
delete all the third line ("T�,o story structur.es
adjacent to R-3 zone - 20 feet.") Under side yard
setbacks, to standardize the side yard setbacY.s, for
one story at eight feet and to standardize tlie side
yard setbacks for ttiro stories at 35 feet, regardless
of what zone they are adjacent to,
Previous motion In view of a stater:ent by Assistant City rlttorney Bea:,�
withdrawn � that since the Council did not have the apprepriate
Ordinance before tlie�.� that the P:egative I)eclaration
should Ue a separa_te action, C�uncilman llycic withdre�c
his previous r�otion. Councilm::n Egdahl agrced as the
second.
Next page for continuation----
Agen�a Item 25
Supplemental Page #6
Dlotion to certify It was moved by Mayor Iiamilton ard seconded by
Negative Declaration Councilman Cox that in accordance svith the Negative
Deciaration, IS-76-G3 and the fifidings stated therein,
that this project tieill have no si�;nificant adverse
environr�ental impacts and to certify the Iv'e�ative
Declaration.
Flotion to certify Negative The r�otion as r.iade Uy P9ayor H�milton carriccl unanimou::i j .
Declaration carried
btotion restated to approve It was moved by Cowlcilman Elyde and seconded by
staff recommendation tiyith Councilman E�dalil th;�t a nesv Ordinance be e:rzi�ted
modifications adoptin� thc sta.f.f recorimendntions an the pre�.:oniny;
, for t}ie pi•operties under consicicratior. as indicate�l
in the staff repoi•t, i.ith t11e following rno�lif:icatioj�:,:
1) tMcicr Paragr<�}>h 2b (2) r�,l:itiylg to scib:rc}:s, ti�, :,
the rear yar�l sctLiaek for singlt: st.ut-y� :;tructin`<•,<
be 15 feet .�u�t f.'ur two �tv�y strticturc�s, 35 fec��
wiYh no diffcrc�ncc !?ct.titi�cri, I:••1 an�l i.-:; zones; ��
far si�te yar�l _,ctUack, oiii� :�torY - �, 1'��ct fur i�,,� :
� R-7 .'s�id R-3 ,�n�l thc l�.tl.;ncc� rc�!r,.:in :i-s rcc��nutii:�n�_�. J
by thc stafl� ("'I'wo sto7�y a�ij�icetit tr� It-1 zon�,
_ i5 feC�t.. 'I'tao :;Lc>ry <i�tj,�c��itt� t�� R-ti zu�ic - 7t1 . �
2) PaFc 3, sccontl para�;r<<pii of �ub-�,ir:iti;rui�h C,
wticrc k'OI'�Il.11t; 1'C�iSjS ". . . a secc�n.i �li;cllir��,
u��it �hull g�iicrally bc aiscoiir:i^c�!; . . ."
tEiat ttie ti,�orcts "general ly be cliscoiiru;ea" be
rej�lacc�i �tiith tfie worct "prohiUite�l."
3j Delete suU-paragraph (d} as recommenaca Uy the
Plaauiing Uirector.
Motion failed The motion to acc°pt staff recor.tmendazion as modified
failed by the following vote, to-wit:
Ayes: Councilmen Hyde, Egdahl
NOES: Councilmen Cox, Hamilton, Hobel
Absent: None
Agenda Item 25
Supplement�l �age #7
Ordinance placed on first reading as amended:
It was moved by Councilman Cox that the reading of the
text be waived by unanimous consent and the Ordinance '
placed on first reading with an amendment to indicate
that the Planning Commission recommendation was adonted
;,i�h incoxporation of the stipulation zs presentcd b;�
Councilman Nyde in his previous motion regardin� setbacis
for rear yard and side yard, deleting Paragrapn (d) on
Page 3 (of staff report) and modification of Paragrapn
(c) (replacing the words "generally be discouraged"
with the word "prohibited.").
Motion clarified Councilman Cox clarified that his amendment would
include the R-1 zoning on the four Iots on Fifth
Avenue.
'
��
. s
! � � �
ORAFT tdEGATIVE DECLARATIOt� OF EC�VIRO���ENTAL IMPACT
On August 2b, 1976 a draft Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
was reconunen e y t�e nvironmental Review Committee of the City of Chula Vista.
' The project is described as follows: Rezonin� and Prezoninq from
R-3-G-P to R-3-P (14} , R-2 to R-1 and R-1 to R-3-P (14)
; ro�ec oca ion: south of L St. be�wge,r� 4th & 5th Aves.
' It is the finding of the Environmental Review Committee that the project will not
haYe a sign�ficant effect on the environment for the following reasons:
� 1. There is a lack of any significant environmental features on
4; or near the site which could be adversely affected by the project.
' Through the precise planning process compatibility with existing
single family dwellings in the project area can be insured.
s
� 2. The project conforms to the long term goals of the City of
Chula Vista by encouraging infilling and redevelopment of the
urbanized area of the community and avoiding development of
environmentally sensitive areas which could degrade the quality
of the environment.
3. The urban infrastructure is generally adeqt�ate to accommodate
the proposed project, thns the project contains no elements which
could be cunstrued to be growth induci�g. The project area is
� surrounded by public facilities and stable single family enclaves
thus there will be no substantial increase in rezoning pressures.
The area junior high school is only marginally able to support, •
� � additional students,however the pote�tial number of students from
this project will not substantially alter the quality of educational
services or be growth inducing.
4. The project site is subject to unacceptable noise levels
and there is a possible land use conflict with adjacent stable
� : - , single family areas. However the zoning is subject to the approval
of precise plans by the City Council. This procedure will insure
that any possible adverse impact on human beings will be avoided.
NOTE: These findings are made in. the review of rezoning and pre-
zoning activities only, and not the consideration of precise plans.
Additional environmental review will be required prior to precise
plan consideration. � , "
Information for the Initial Study was prepared by: - --
- .__ . _
-. Cit� of Chula Vista Plannina Dept. P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista �
The Initial Study Application and Evaluation is on file with the .Environmental � �
- Rev1eW Coo►^dinator of the C�ty of Chula Vista and may be revieti•red at the Planning �\
Department of the City of Chu7a Vista between 8:00 a.m, and 5:00 p.m, .�
��� '
Environ e� tal Review Coor �na or
' CASE NUPI6ER IS-76-63
� Date� A«g,. 2�._19�6_
fPl 3 {rev. 3-20-75)
. ..�.,:,�
� �
CHU�A VISTA
��R� HIGH SCHOOL
0� 100� 200�
PREZONE REZONE
" " STREFT��� � ���
� ���� ..���■ L .�� � ��
, ,
, ,
� i i I � ' I i � 'W
W , � i � I i i � i � � � °°-- - �
� ,-90- � � � � � � � � I � I +iZ
w�� i i � ► i � �_ �_ �_ I _ � _L ' ,>
Q _ �"�l "I �� � '-ns'±�' ;
+i � I I �
I � � � �
-_' — � � � I i � �
', � � i ' �
.
1241�
WESTBY ST. �
H
_ �
� � �
� o
� CIT F CHUI STA
COU OF AN DIEG `
A R IZONA ST.
�`�p�E ST. _
� � i ���
� � � -
; � �
CASE N0. E'GZ-7s-L I HEREBY CERTIFY T H AT TH IS ZON I NG MAP
ACREAGE �-4O WAS APPROVED AS A PART OF ORDINANCE
1709 BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON OCT 26•�g76,
SC A L E �" = 200' . �/ / �
DAT E n�=T . cirv c�
RK ATE
DRAWN 6Y ZONI N G MAP - 335
C H EC K E D B Y �----
RESOLUTIOn! r:L. PC�7f-L
RE`_>U�t_UlIO;d 1Ji� THE C:liY f�'i_P.:ili:"�6 CUPii�1;51;1�v REC�h1I�+3El'1DIP,G TO
THE i;Ilt (Oil;��( 1L 1�N� �` ���:Ca_ 01� Ft:U��"�TP:( �P'D LON7,P�S FOR P.4
AGR�S LG��a i F[) Oi���Ti-!� ,� u Cf1 -31 D� 0'- ' L" Sl P�ET BETWEEid �O�iRTtl �
Ah� FIf�iN ,t?;EP,Ui_� TO �;-::-'t'-!;
I�tHEREf�5, on July 6, 1516, the City Counci? cier�ie�! a a°equest for a charr�e
in tFie C:hula l'i5ta General Plan fnt° approxiroately fi aci°es located on the south
side of "L" �i.reeti b�utvr?er Fourth ar�d Fiftii F�ve:;��es from �^euiui�� De��sity Residert-
tial to 1-ligl�� l�ensity R�sidentid] and direci;etl t�.l;e City Planning Cou��missi��� to
consider a charigc of zoning and prezoning of the area to make it consistent with
� i:he �enerai f'lan desiqnatic�n, ard
W��EREAS, tl�e C�ity Plannir� Coi.�r�ission inii:ia±ed an a.ppl ication to consid�r:
Rezon;ng t���o e;:istin9 lots locai�ed at the soutru�rest cor'ner of Foui-th and "L" S�reet
froin IZ-1 to R-3-P-1!i; prezoning four lcts located c�n th� east side of Fiftf� l�vPrtiue,
developed G•+ith �inc,le family residences, to P.-1; and prezor�ing the remaining are:a
on the so��t+i side af "L" Street hetG�,�een Faurth ar�c� Fif�I1 AV�i1LPS (approximat�ly
7?; ac}�es) fl,om f�-3-G-P i:o R-3-P-14, Gnd
�JHERE/1S, Initial Study TS-76-63, conducted by the Enviranmental Review
Ccmn�,itte�, concluded on Auaust. 26, 1976 tha� ther�� wo�!ld be no significant acfv��rse
env�rorim��nt�1 in�pact as a result of t:his rezoriiny action, and
6df{ERE�1S, the City Plarning Con�n�issiori se': the tim� ai;d p7ace for a hea�°ir�g
on szid zoz�e char��ye, and r�otice of sairl hearing, ton,ether witli its purpose, was
given by the pu�lication in a r.ewspaper of gene�ai circulatioi� in the City at
ieast lU days prior Lo the date of s�:id hearing, and
WHL-REAS, a hearing was iield �t th� time and plac.e as advertised, namely
7:QU p.m., Septemu�r 13, 197f,, b;rf�re �he Plui�niilg Co�r�mission and said hearing
t�;as t4iereafter closed.
NQI�I TFiERLFGRE BE 1-i RESQLVE� r^,S FOLLO'rlS:
1. Tt�e Planning Coaimis�ion fi��ds that in accordanc:e with the �legatiive
Declaration on IS-76-63 and the fin�(ings staieci therein, this praject �-rill have no
significani; advcrse environ�nent-�1 impacts, and ::ertifies that the Negative
Declaration r��as prepared in accc•�°dance vaith CEQA 1°7Q, as amcnded.
2. From factis presented to thc Ccm,mission, the Ccmmission finds that
pubEic necessity, conveniencc, �aene�'al welfar��: and yood zo�;ing practice reqi�ire
the change of prezoning and z��ning for 8.4 acres �o�ated on the south side oi' �
°L" S�reet bet�����en Fourtfi and Fift,, A��enues from f?-1, R-? and R-3-G-P to
R-3-P-14 with the adoption of the ��llowing �_�r`ecise plan develo�m�nt standarus
' and guid�1ines:
a. Ptaxir,,�,�:�i building neignt •• 'i�ti�o stary, not t.o e;:ceeu 35 feF�t.
b. Setlaacks - Front an�9 e>:t-E,i�ior sideyar�s, 25 feet ��`��r� cr�e and
tvre s�to7°y structur�es ar;d ��arkir,g areas.
� Note: Sirrgfe st:�ry c�rports m�y have zero side yard sE:ib�cks;
all o�tt;t�r accessor_y buildings sf�al�i �rain�:ain t��e rec�uired setbacks.
- Rear y��rd -single sto�°y strtRCtures, 15 fee.t
- t��,o story s*t�uci:ures adjacc>nt to R--1 zc�nc, i5 ft.
� - tr�o st�ry struct�.�res adj�cent to R-3 zo��e, 20 ft.
- Side yar� - one siory adjaccnt to R-�1 zonc, B ft.
- orEe story adjaccnt to R-3 zone, 5 ft.
- ta;o story adj�,cent to R--1 zone, 35 ft.
- ta;o story adjacent to R-3 zone, 10 ft.
c. Ti�e above standards are desirable guineiines which niay he incr�ased
or decreased on t!�e basis of the follow�ir,c,� design factor of any
proposed praject:
(1) Orientation oi buildings vt�ith regard Lo the propert� line.
(2} Loca�ion of r:indoti�rs.
(3) Length of building fronta�e along a given property lirie.
(4) Loca�_ion and ty�;e of structure or the a:ljacent loc.
d. Usable G�1en Space:
�l) 700 sq. ft. of usablE., open space per unit to be apporCioned
into private ar;d com�oo�i open spac2 as follo�vs:
Grourid floor uni�s - 3,JU sq. ft. private open spa.ce �er unit
Second story units - 100 sq. ft. pr�ivate open space per «nit
Remainder as cor„»o,i usable open s�ace.
(2) Yai,ds abutting a street do not qualify as usable open s��a.ce.
(3) IZedevelopment of lot, under 10,000 sq. ft. in area shall be
encouraged througl� cor�bination of adjacent lots anr{ removal
of existing str•�ciures.
Intensification of tl�e developn�e��� on individual lots under
10,000 sq. ft. thi�ouc;h tl�e addition of a se:.orid dw.elling unit
shall generally Uc cliscouraged; ho;•.ever, it may be permitted
provi�ed the arct,itecturai treatment of the tw.o units is
matcf�ed and tt,�_ site plan provi�,es ari integrated complex with
offsireet parking and t�sable o��en space propei�ly relating to
the un�ts. Ir� ord�r to provide prcr�r� architectural matctiing,
tne cxisting siruc�tur� may be req;a�ired to b� n�od�ifi�d.
_Z_
3. Ti�ie fi���dirigs of facP ir� su�7p��rt oi sa�id deterr,7ina�tion are as iollows:
a. fligh densit.y iesi_iential �is inappf°opriate at !:his l�cation Lecause
the ar�a is in�+i+a;�;�t�nly adjacc:��i. to a E•rell mafi�ta;ned sin�i�� �fariily
ar°ea to th� south, ar,c! re�.on;nc� ±o lesser density �vith addit�ional
co�lstra�ints ��r� deveiopnient tl,r•o��yh the precise plan r°evic��1 pi°ocedure
wili protcct t'�e ci�aracter .;rd ;taf�ility of t��e adjacent land uses..
b. The prop��ed R-3 f'-l�l zar•,inc r,iar�-ificiiio!; is ccnsistent vditfi the
niax�i�nutr� range o�F the Gener��l P�lan ct�signa��ion of P1edi�Fm Density
Residential.
4. The P1anring Commi��l�iot� recomn;�nds to the City Ccuncil tha� said change
of zone be gr�r�t�d.
5. That this resnlutian b�� irar�smitted to the City Council.
PASSED AND APPRJUE[) 6Y THE CITI' f�LAPJtvTf�G COPihiISSIDN OF CHU:_P, 1'ISTA, CALIFORNII�
this 13th day of Scptember5 147n by the followiny vote, to-wit:
AYES: Conunissioners Pressutti, R. �?ohnson, Sr:�ith, Starr and G. Johnson
NOES: Cammissiorier Floto
AESEPIT: Conrrissione�° Chandler
.,��' / C�, _
.�4���"�-���--t=��!�—a—`'1—
� C�airman Pra Tempore
ATTEST:
�; ,� f J�
_ !'- y � �r�.<=,; �_, :
" �- --�—Secs°etary;
-3-