HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports /2006/02/22
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Of the City of Chula Vista, California
6:00 p.m.
Wednesday, February 22,2006
City Hall
New Council Chambers
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALUMOTIONS TO EXCUSE
Madrid_ Felber_ Bensoussan_ Hom_ Nordstrom_ Tripp_
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE and MOMENT OF SILENCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
January 25, 2006
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission
on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on
today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Rehearing of ZAV 06-05; A variance request to waive the
one (1) off-street parking space that is required for an
accessory second dwelling unit located at 97 "D" Street.
Applicant: Carl and Leticia Zinno (Quasi-judicial)
Project Manager: Lynette Tessitore-Lopez, Assoc. Planner
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT:
To a regular Planning Commission meeting on
March 8, 2006.
Planning Commission
-2-
February 22, 2006
COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests
individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City
meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations at least forty-eight hours in advance for
meetings, and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for
specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TOO) at 585-
5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired.
MINUTES OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
6:00 p.m.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Public Services Building
Council Chambers
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California
CALL TO ORDER:
Members Present:
Member(s) Absent:
Madrid, Felber, Bensoussan, Nordstrom, Tripp
Hom
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
November 16, 2005.
MSC (Madrid/Felber) (5-0-1-0) to approve minutes as
submitted with noted corrections. Motion carried.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Madrid.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No public input.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA 06-01; Proposal to amend the Chula Vista
Municipal Code (CVMC) to regulate the brewing and
distilling of liquors in the Limited Industrial (I-L)
Zone. Applicant: City of Chula Vista.
Background: John Schmitz reported that this item is before the Commission as a
result of two individuals who applied for a business license seeking to operate a small
brewing facility at 779 Anita Street. Subsequently, the business license was denied
because the Municipal Code currently prohibits the brewing or distilling of liquors within
the I-L Zone.
Staff determined that with a minor adjustment to the Zoning Ordinance, the
establishment of micro-breweries would facilitate "home-grown" businesses and would
be a worthy economic development effort.
The two-part amendment involves first, amending Section 19.44.050(9), prohibiting
brewing or distilling of liquors except those requiring a Type 23 ABC license. Type 23
licenses allow small micro-breweries that typically produce specialty beers with the
option of having a small restaurant or pub and cannot exceed more than 60,000 barrels
of beer per year.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 2 -
January 25,2006
6:21 :02 PM At such time that the ordinance amendment is approved, the applicants intend to
submit a Conditional Use Permit application.
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission recommends to the City
Council the adoption of the ordinance adding Section 19.44.040Q and amending
Section 19.44.050 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code to conditionally allow the brewing
and distilling of liquors within the Limited Industrial Zones of the City of Chula Vista.
Commission Questions I Comments:
Cmr. Bensoussan asked:
. What defines a micro vs. macro brewery.
. Is 779 Anita Street within the Redevelopment Area; if so, would the Planning
Commission be excluded from the review process and would it be done by the
CVRC; and
. Does the applicant intend to include a pub in his proposal
John Schmitz responded that the ABC Board defines a microbrewery as one that
produces less than 60,000 barrel per year. Karl Strauss, for example, has an annual
output of approximately 15,000 barrels.
Mr. Schmitz further stated that the site is not within the Redevelopment Area, but if it
were, the CVRC would review the Conditional Use Permit and make a recommendation
to the RDA.
Mr. Schmitz stated that the 779 Anita 81. site would be the production facility, that
would supply the restaurant/pubs that are planned in the future.
Cmr. Tripp inquired if the Planning Commission would have the ability to condition the
CUP, and if so, would it be limited to land use matters and not something that is under
the purview of the ABC Board.
Mr. Schmitz responded that if the Commission can make the findings that this use does
not violate the General Plan requirements, is not detrimental to surrounding land uses,
you can craft any Condition of Approval you deem appropriate to help meet those
standards.
Cmr. Tripp pointed out that the ABC Board has authority for regulating ABC permits,
therefore, as a recommendation to staff, perhaps it would be helpful to the Planning
Commission to receive training on what is the scope of the Planning Commission's
authority relative to these types of uses that are also regulated by the ABC Board.
John Mullen further clarified that the City is preempted from regulating the distribution
and sale of alcohol, however, it still has land use authority for the Conditional Use
Permit process.
Planning Commission Minutes
-3-
January 25,2006
6:31:42 PM PUBLIC HEARING OPENED.
Doug Chase, 2322 Spanish Bay Road, future applicant, stated he was available to
answer questions.
Cmr. Bensoussan asked what was the anticipated production and whether they plan
to establish a pub/restaurant.
Mr. Chase responded that their plans are to open three restaurants within a five-year
period. The locations they are considering is east Chula Vista, downtown Chula Vista,
the Gaslamp District and possibly one in Coronado. As mentioned earlier, the Anita
Street site would be for manufacturing and distribution. In terms of production, an
average brew-pub produces approximately 700 barrel per year. Mr. Chase and partner
would be extremely pleased if they produced 1,000 barrels for each of their restaurant.
Cmr. Nordstrom inquired if there are any plans to sell at local supermarkets, or would
their production be solely for the restaurants.
Mr. Chase responded that it would be strictly for the restaurants because the nature of
the beer distribution business is very challenging and complex.
6:35:53 PM PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED.
Cmr. Nordstrom congratulated Mr. Chase, bid him the best of luck in his future
business endeavors and stated that this is the type of business we need in the City; a
home-grown product sold in local restaurants.
6:36:07 PM MSC (Felber/Nordstrom) (5-0-1-0) that the Planning Commission recommends to
the City Council the adoption of the ordinance adding Section 19.44.040Q and
amending Section 19.44.050 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code to conditionally
allow the brewing and distilling of liquors within the Limited Industrial Zones of
the City of Chula Vista Motion carried.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
Jim Hare informed the Commission of the repositioning of personnel in the Planning and
Building Department, placing him as the Assistant Planning Director and stated he looked
forward to working with the Planning Commission.
Mr. Hare gave an update on recent items that have gone before the City Council.
Commission Business:
Cmr Bensoussan stated that the joint meeting between the Housing Advisory
Commission and the Planning Commission was very productive and the minutes reflect
the many good comments made by both commissions and the public. Ms. Bensoussan
Planning Commission Minutes
-4-
January 25, 2006
inquired if the content of the minutes will be relayed to the City Council in some form or
another.
Jim Hare stated that very shortly there will be City Council workshop on the Housing
Element and the comments and information gathered at the earlier joint workshop will most
definitely be reflected in staff's report.
Cmr. Bensoussan stated that if there is interest from the Planning Commission, she
would like to see on a future agenda for discussion purposes an item to make a formal
recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council to get a move on the
public review process for the CVRC.
Cmr. Tripp stated he's not certain that the Planning Commission needs to weigh in on a
public review process that would be held at a public hearing, given that the RDA would
hold a public hearing and Council members are all members of the RDA and they would
form a public review process independent of the Planning Commission.
46:53 PM Meeting adjourned.
Prepared by: Diana Vargas
Secretary to the Planning Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: --'-
Meeting Date: 02/22/06
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Rehearing ofZA V -06-05, a variance request to waive the one
(1) off-street parking space that is required for an accessory second dwelling
unit; Applicant: Carl and Leticia Zinn 97 "D" Street.
The application is for a variance to waive the provision of CVMC 19.58.022, which requires that
accessory second dwelling units (ASDU's) be provided with one standard (9 x 19) parking space for
studio, one-bedroom or two bedroom units. (Attachment 1)
The Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that this project is a Class 3(a) categorical
exemption from environmental review (CEQA Section 15303(a), new construction of small
structures.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve ZA V -06-05 based on the findings
of fact of the attached Resolution.
DISCUSSION:
1. Background
This item was considered by the Planning Commission on February 8, 2006 and was denied by a
vote of 3 favoring -1 opposed - 2 absent -0 abstaining. CVMC 19.14.110 states that where an
appli;~ation is denied by less than four votes, the applicant shall have the right to either a rehearing at
the next Planning Commission meeting or an appeal to the City Council without payment of
additional fees. The applicant has elected for a Planning Commission rehearing on the matter.
2. Site Characteristics
The property is located on the north side of"D" Street west of Corte Maria at the end of First
Avenue (Attachment 2). The property is an irregularly shaped lot, which drops in elevation north
to south. Though the front ofthe parcel is at a significantly higher elevation than the rear of the
parcel, the rear of the parcel is relatively flat. (See photos, Attachment 3)
The !Jrimary residence observes a 10-foot setback from the easterly property line and 4 foot
setback from the westerly property line. An mature hedge that which screens and contributes to
the character of the craftsman home to the east, runs along the entire easterly portion of the lot.
The hedge is about 3' wide, which reduces the space on that side to approximately 7 ft. wide.
The site also features a planting area and a masonry wall on the east side of the driveway.
The subject property is bounded to the north, west and east by developed and well established
single family residential lots (See Photos, Attachment 4). "D" Street is primarily improved (curb
Page 2 , Item: _
Meeting Date: 02-22-06
and sidewalks), except for the intersection of"D" Street and the existing/future First Avenue
alignment. An area approximately 21 lineal feet is available directly in front of the property to
accommodate the parking of one (1) vehicle.
The rear of the lot abuts the private road portion of First Avenue from which the applicant could
have vehicular access to the rear of the lot if there was the necessary right of way. However,
neither the city nor the applicant has been able to acquire the necessary right-of-way to provide
such vehicular access.
2. General Plan. Zoning and Land Use
The project is located in the R-l - Single-Family Residential Zone, and has a General Plan Land Use
Designation of Residential Low Medium (3-6 dwelling units per gross acre). According to Chula
Vista Municipal Code 19.58.022, accessory second dwelling units of 850 square feet or less are
alloYied in the R-1 Zone and shall not be considered in density calculation. Therefore this site is
consistent with the existing General Plan and zoning designations for the lot.
3. Proposal
The City's accessory dwelling unit ordinance requires ministerial review of accessory dwelling units
that are 850 square feet or less as long as they are in compliance with 19.58.022. On April 26, 2005 a
building permit was issued for an accessory dwelling unit at this site. The one (1) car parking space,
along the eastern portion ofthe lot, as shown on the approved building permit site plan, satisfied the
requirement for off-street parking. Therefore, after full review of the plans, planning staff found that
the proposed accessory dwelling unit met the provisions ofCVMC 19.58.022 and approved the
building permit to allow for the construction of the accessory second dwelling unit.
In an effort to avoid the removal of an established landscaping hedge, a planting area and a
decorative masonry wall, which is needed to provide the off-street parking for their approved
acce<;sory second dwelling unit, the property owner has requested a variance from the off-street
parking requirement of accessory second dwelling units (CVMC 19.58.022). CVMC 19.58.022,
requires that accessory second dwelling units be provided with one standard (9 x 19) parking space
for studio, one-bedroom or two bedroom units.
According to CVMC 19.14.140 a deviation from the regulations of a particular zone require a
variance. Such actions require a public hearing when the deviation requested exceeds 20% of the
requirement imposed by ordinances. In this particular case the applicant has requested a 100%
deviation from the required parking requirement and therefore the matter was set for public hearing.
ANALYSIS:
Accessory dwelling units are permitted without a public hearing by state law and a building
permit to allow for the construction of the accessory second dwelling unit at this site was issued
as a ministerial action and is not subject to this application. The variance request is solely to
waive the parking requirement. Ifthe applicants are not required to provide the off street parking
Page 3, Item: _
Meeting Date: 02-22-06
space, they will avoid the need to remove a well established landscaping hedge and removal of a
planting area and decorative masonry wall in the front of the subject parcel. Therefore, approval
of the variance will help to preserve and protect the character of this established residential
neighborhood. In such case that the variance is denied, the property owners will have to remove
the hedge and erect a five foot wood fence to screen the parking within the side yard to the east.
One of the challenges of introducing an accessory second dwelling unit to an existing lot is the
preservation of the residential quality, as viewed from the street, and the retention of quality and
character of existing neighborhoods. The applicant's accessory second dwelling unit will not be
viewed from the street as it is proposed to be built behind the primary residence, approximately
34 feet below the primary residence and the adjacent property to the east. Granting of this
variance may also help to meet the challenge of adding an accessory second dwelling unit in an
established neighborhood by minimizing the visual impact that would occur if the hedge were to
be removed to provide parking within the side yard area. (Attachment 5)
In light of the particulars of the site, staff believes that the findings could be made for a variance
from the accessory second dwelling unit parking requirement. First, a hardship particular to the
property and not created by the owner does exist. The property is an irregularly shaped lot, that drops
in elevation north to south. The width of the parcel is less than the standard 60-foot wide parcel
typical in the R -1 zone. The narrow width ofthe parcel and the difference in elevation from the front
ofthe parcel to the rear ofthe parcel makes vehicular access difficult. Therefore the required parking
is lirl1ited to the easterly side portion of the lot or directly in front of the parcel.
Accessory second dwelling units are allowed on all single-family residential lots within the R-l
zone. The property owner would like the benefit of an accessory second dwelling unit, that others
in the same zone are allowed, without providing on-site parking that may impact single family
characteristics, such as an established hedge and a decorative masonry wall, that are significant to
both the subject property and the craftsman home located on the adjacent parcel to the east. In
addition, the hedge provides a natural boundary that contributes to the historic context of the
craftsman home to the east. Therefore if granted, the variance would not constitute a special
privilege ofthe recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors.
The second dwelling unit is proposed to be located behind and at a lower elevation than the primary
residence. Because of this the single-family lot, as perceived from D Street, retains the residential
quality and character of the underlying zone. The applicant has not been able to secure a vehicular
access easement, which would allow a parking space in the rear portion of the lot, adjacent to the
seco'ld dwelling unit it is intended to serve. Therefore the only other options are to accommodate the
parking on the eastern side of the primary residence, to park within the front yard setback or to park
on the street directly in front of the parcel. As mentioned above, through the building permit,
planning staff found that the one car screened parking space accommodated within the easterly
interior side yard met the requirements of CVMC 19.58.022 (C.6.), though parking here would
require the removal of the large hedge that not only provides substantial privacy between the
property and the craftsman home to the east but natural boundary between the subject property and
the adjacent parcel to the east. This hedge is a formal landscaping feature that provides an excellent
foreground for the subject property and, is an important complement to the easterly adjacent
Page 4, Item: _
Meeting Date: 02-22-06
Craftsman home. It is also a statement of the character and quality of a well established
neighborhood. Removal of the hedge to accommodate the parking space present a practical difficulty
in developing the property, meeting the property owner's needs and preserving the neighborhood
character and historic quality it provides to the easterly adjacent Craftsman home. Therefore, in this
instance, providing the off street parking space may have more of a detrimental impact upon
surrounding parcels than the impact of parking on street in front of the parcel. The Planning
Commission at the earlier hearing briefly discussed the alternative of providing the needed parking
space next to the driveway and within the required front yard. This option would similarly be of
detrimental impact to the surrounding parcels by replacing landscaping in the front yard and
encouraging parking in front yards where such parking is inconsistent with zoning standards
observed elsewhere in the neighborhood.
In addition, the granting ofthis variance would not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of
Chuta Vista. Section 7.2 of the Land Use and Transportation Element, Preserving and Enhancing
Stabie Residential Neighborhoods, Objective LUT-2.1 states that it is the policy to preserve and
reinforce the community character of existing older well-maintained neighborhoods. In this case,
waiving the 1 car off street parking space would help to maintain the single-family character of this
older neighborhood by maintaining the appearance of a single family dwelling unit from the front
view of the parcel.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recognizes the importance of preservation of older neighborhoods. Addition of a parking space
for the approved accessory second dwelling unit would require the removal of the existing side yard
vegetation, which provides privacy and a sense of residential character both to the subject property
and the unique craftsman home to the east. It would also require additional paving in the front of the
parcel. In this instance, a variance from the parking requirement may minimize the neighborhood
impact of this accessory second dwelling unit. On this site, on-street parking will help retain the
single-family appearance as viewed from the front of the parcel. Staff recommends that the Planning
COITlmission consider the constraints to accommodate on-site parking and the significant benefit to
the neighborhood character that will result through the preservation of established landscaping that
contributes to the residential character of both the property and the craftsman home to the east and
recommends that Planning Commission approve ZA V-06-05.
Attachments
1. Variance Application
2. Locator Map
3. Photos of the Subject Parcel
4. Photos of the Surrounding Area
5. Site Plan
J:\PlaPning-Case Files--06 (FY 05-06)\ZA V\Public Hearing,l.A V-06-05\StaffReport>\ZA V-06-05 Zinn Variance Staff Report rehearing.jbh.doc
RESOLUTION NO. ZA V-06-05
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION, TO APPROVE ZAV-06-05, A VARIANCE REQUEST TO
WAIVE THE ONE (1) OFF-STREET PARKING SPACE THAT IS
REQUIRED FOR AN ACCESSORY SECOND DWELLING UNIT;
APPLICANT: CARL AND LETICIA ZINN 97 "D" STREET.
WHEREAS, Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.58.022 requires that all
accessory dwelling units shall be provided with one standard (9 x 19) parking space for
studio, one-bedroom or two bedroom units; and
WHEREAS, on January 23, 2006 a duly verified application for a variance was
filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Division by the property owners; and
WHEREAS, the application filed requests that the accessory second dwelling
unit one parking space requirement be waived and that the second dwelling unit to be
served by an on-street parking space available directly in front of the property; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator, in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has concluded that this project is a Class
3 categorical exemption from environmental review (CEQA Section 15303, new
construction or conversion of small structures); and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely
February 8, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission denied the variance request by a 3-1-2-0
vote; and
WHEREAS, Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.14.110 states that when an
application is denied by a Planning Commission by less than four votes, the applicant
shall have the right to a rehearing or an appeal to the City Council without payment of
additional fees; and
WHEREAS, the applicant requested that the matter be set for rehearing and notice of
said rehearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of
general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners and residents within 500
feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely
February 22, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the
Planning Commission; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does
hereby approve ZA V -06-05 in accordance with the findings of this Resolution and
subject to the conditions contained herein:
1. That a hardship particular to the property and not created by any act of the owner
exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in developing for the needs
of the owner consistent with the regulations of the zone; but in this context,
personal, family, or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits, and neighboring
violations are not hardships justifying a variance. Further, a previous variance can
never have set a precedent, for each case must be considered only on its individual
merits.
A hardship particular to the property and not created by the owner does exist. The
property is an irregularly shaped lot that drops in elevation north to south. The rear of the
parcel is at a significantly lower elevation that the front ofthe parcel. The width of the
parcel is less than the standard 60-foot wide parcel typical in the R-1 zone. The narrow
width of the parcel and the fact that the elevation differs from the front of the parcel to
the rear of the parcel makes vehicular access from the front of the parcel difficult.
Therefore the required parking is limited to the easterly side portion of the lot or directly
in front of the parcel.
2. That such a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning districts and in the
same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted would not constitute a special privilege
of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors.
Accessory second dwelling units are allowed on all single-family residential lots within
the R -1 zone. The property owner would like the benefit of an accessory second dwelling
unit that others in the same zone are allowed without providing on-site parking that may
impact single family characteristics. Thus, the parking could only be accommodated
along the east side of the primary residence where a very healthy and attractive hedge
runs along the entire eastern property line. The hedge is a formal landscaping feature that
provides an excellent foreground for the subject property and is an important complement
to the easterly adjacent Craftsman home. It is also a statement of the character and
quality of a well established neighborhood. Removal of the hedge to accommodate the
parking space present a practical difficulty in developing the property, meeting the
property owner's needs and preserving the neighborhood character and historic quality it
provides to the easterly adjacent Craftsman home.
3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to the
adjacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter or
public interest.
The variance would not have a detrimental impact upon surrounding parcels. In this case,
the required one (1) car off street parking space may have more of a detrimental impact to
the surrounding neighborhood as the provision of the parking space within the side yard
would require the removal of a large long established hedge that provides substantial
privacy between the property and the property to the east. In addition to privacy
screening, retaining the hedge will retain a natural boundary that contributes to the
historic context of the craftsman home to the east.
4. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the
City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The granting of this variance would not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of
Chula Vista. Section 7.2 of the Land Use and Transportation Element, Preserving and
Enhancing Stable Residential Neighborhoods, Objective LUT -2.1 states that it is the
policy to preserve and reinforce the community character of existing older well-
maintained neighborhoods. In this case, waiving the one (1) car off street parking space
would help to maintain the single-family character of this older neighborhood by
maintaining the appearance of a single family dwelling unit from the front view of the
parcel.
I. Prior to Occupancy:
1. The existence of this variance with approved conditions shall be recorded with the County
Recorder of the County of San Diego and a copy of the recorded documented shall be
submitted to the Planning Department to be made a part of the file.
2. Submit revised construction plans that show a paved area next to the accessory second
dwelling unit that will be sufficient in size to accommodate a standard size parking space.
The parking area(s) shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Planning and Building.
II. Ongoing Conditions:
1. If any access easement(s), that would provide access to the rear of the parcel, are acquired
within three (3) years from the approval of ZA V -06-05, the property owners shall be required
to provide parking next to the accessory second dwelling unit.
2. The conditions of approval for this permit shall be applied to the subject property until such
time that the variance is modified, revoked, or voided.
3. Any deviation from the above noted conditions of approval shall require the approval of a
modified variance. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted
conditions imposed after approval of this permit to advance a legitimate governmental
interest related to health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance written
no!ice to the Permittee and after the City has given to the Permittee the right to be heard with
regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose
a substantial expense or deprive Permittee of a substantial revenue source which the
Permittee cannot, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically
recover.
3. This permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized within one year from the
effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal Code. Failure
to comply with any conditions of approval shall cause this permit to be reviewed by the City
for additional conditions or revocation.
III. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The Property Owner and Applicant shall execute this document signing on the lines provided
below, said execution indicating that the property owner and applicant have each read,
understood and agreed to the conditions contained herein, and will implement same. Upon
execution, this document shall be recorded with the County Recorder of the County of San
Diego, at the sole expense of the property owner and/or applicant, and a signed, stamped copy
returned to the City's Planning and Building Department. Failure to return the signed and
stamped copy of this recorded document within 10 days of recordation shall indicate the property
owner/applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding application for building permits
and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval.
Signature of Property Owner
97 "D" Street
Date
Signature of Property Owner
97 "D" Street
Date
IV. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented
and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained
according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein
granted, deny, or further condition issuance of all future building permits, deny, revoke, or
further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein
granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek
damages for their
violation. Failure to satisfy the conditions of this permit may also result in the imposition of
civil or criminal penalties.
V. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the Planning Commission that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent
upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in
the event that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by a Court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution and the pennit shall
be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio.
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 22nd day of February, 2006, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Vicki Madrid, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
n g &
f} 711J(j-( ~( t;)}/ 1-
Id ng Department
Planning Division
~~~
-.-
"-::;F -==-- - - =::=
P I ann
B u
--
cm OF
CHULA VISfA
APPLICATION · DEVELOPMENT PROCESS I NG · TYPE A
Part 1
T e of Review Re uested
A Heation Information
Applicant Name C~ t).,1U ~ Le..k'i ~ c.-.. 2.. \. t\) C\J
Applicant Address C\:r U.s\' cO ^ ~~ U\ ~ ~ C-A- q \ ~ t 'Q
Contact Name Le--l:~~~ Z'N(\.) Phone ~~\-{O~\ ~\.~) S'.P..{-~b\ (4))
Applicant's Interest in Property (If applicant is not the owner, the owner's authorization signature at the end of this form is required
to process this request.) &tOwn 0 Rent 0 Other: ~ \ q "\ \
Architect/Agent: LC\ r .:> CoN.:>l cZ.u... c... -ti O'\) Address: ~ I. t).3 S f tv. ruL.r G I U- ~A- C'A
Contact Name: bPsc::.1\J ~~N Phone: ~\~ - '-t, \a 3:. - tS)6.b t>
Primary contact is: ~Applicant 0 Architect/Agent Email ofprimaryco_ntact:L2-lroNe:..ro~LC ...ti:I/LA.>
o Conditional Use Permit
o Design Review
La'" Variance
o Special Use Permit (redevelopment area only)
o Misc.
General Project Description (all types)
Project Name: Q.":\- P.sl. ~
~ne~P!fn of .proDosed Project:~~.
{orr.s . -; 4SpQt;1 f\e1-'-'/'r1~.
.
Has this project received pre-application review comments?
Subject Property Information (all types)
Location/Street Address: q:r- D ~ . ~ ~t-- "'" ~~ CA- ~ \ q \ 0
Assessor's Parcel #: ..s-~tp ~ 13/ -/2 -6Z)Total Acreage: "I, Redevelopmen:tr~a (if applicable): N 0
General Plan Designation: j( Ltf) Zone Designation: \ /
Planned Community (if applicable): N \ .p,.. \
Current Land Use: \S'TR Within Montgomery Specific Plan? DYes ~o
Proposed Project (all types)
Type of use proposed: ~ Residential
Landscape Coverage (% of lot):
o Commercial
D Industrial
D Other:
Building Coverage (% of lot):
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista I California
2-5
91910
(619) 691-5101
~\ft-
~.-
APPLICATION . DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING · TYPE A
Part 2
COY Of
CHUlA VISfA
Residential Project Summary
Type of dwelling unit(s):
Dwelling units:
~
t-\od-
Number of lots:
C>~~
PROPOSED
EXISTING
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3+-Bedroom
,
TOTAL
9..
~
~
Density (DU/acre):
Maximum building height:
Minimum lot size:
Average lot size:
Parking Spaces:
Required by code: O"'tZ- Provided: J2r
Type of parking (i.e. size; whether covered. etc.):~bV qp..ak:.~ ~~~ ~ -f-t ,
Open space description (acres each of private. common, and landscaping): IJ I ~
'21.QUJ ~~
Non-Residential Pro .eet Summar
Existing:
~di~9 Height:
Maximum numbe\of empy::yees at anyone time:
\ J',aung capadty: /
~X~ L ___
'----------
Gross floor area: Proposed:
Hours of operation (days & hours):
Anticipated number of employees:
Number and ages of students/children (if appr
Parking Spaces:
Required by code~ ..----- Provided:
----------
Type of parking (i.e. size; whether covered, etc.):
Authorization
Print applicant name: Le.-\-\ c: CA... 2~ N^-.J
Applicant Signature: ~<--- '"2: -
Date:
\~ aC}\O)
Print owner name': Le..-+l c..t.- DNtU
--Owner Signature': ~ 2--
Date:
\d1~lo)
'Note: Proof of ownership may be required. Letter of consent may be provided in lieu of signature.
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista I California
2-6
91910
(619) 691-5101
~~~
-.-
r~= = =-=
env OF
CHUIA VISTA
P I ann
n g
&
Building
Planning Division I
Department
Development Processing
APPLICATION APPENDIX A
Project Description & Justification
Project Name:
'1)- V sI.
L e.. -+~ ~ c.-. ?. ~ N tV
ls~ ~~
~ 2-\(\,}~
I
.
Applicant Name:
Please fully describe the proposed project, any and all construction that may be accomplished as a result of approval of
this project, and the project's benefits to yourself. the property, the neighborhood, and the City of Chula Vista. Include any
details necessary to adequately explain the scope and/or operation of the proposed project. You may include any
background information and supporting statements regarding the reasons for, or appropriateness of, the application. Use
an addendum sheet if f!ecessary.
For all Conditional Use Permits or Variances, please address the required "findings' as listed in the Application Procedural
Guide.
, Z tj-U-I.f'! -p tUCII 'u.f -lAP r-e ~I /P<:,c/ 'PC//--/( </J 7 ~ CCLl./..fi:1
-p PI7Y/c:b -f& re~/rud J??qr~/)9 AJ~c/~/'~~
/1) C/;Qv11q --!-N C/,q/7q0r- )/7b, <h,k'~/J7 ..rJC/f
by remNIJr1 hediflJ. c;dd,}'o7J,d <7 ~';{,V <J~
~ PqVlh~ wi /'/) -/it W V9~,~
/ U . /
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista I California
2-7
91910
(619) 691-5101
~
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND
LOC)CATOR ~~~: Carl & Leticia Zinn
~g-'~~: 970 St.
SCAlE: FILE NUMBER:
No Scale ZAV-06-05
BUILDING
DEPARTMENT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
VARIANCE
Project Summary: A variance to waive the 1 car parking requirement
of the Second Accessory Dwelling Unit provisians.
elated cases: None
J:\planning\carlos\locators\zav0605.cdr 01.12.06