Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1982/08/25 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, August 25, 1982 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PPAYER APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of August ll, 1982 ORAL COMMUHICATIONS 1. Request for two year extension of tentative subdivision map for East Orange Village Condominiums, Chula Vista Tract 80-23, 225-255 East Orange Avenue 2. PUBLIC HEARING (cont.): Conditional use permit PCC-83-1 to establish a day care facility for 20 children at 142 Third Avenue - Hazel Daniels, President, Dan-X Corp. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Amendment to conditional use permit PCC-77-1 for expansion of Starlight Center, 1280 Nolan Avenue - San Diego County Association for Retarded 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional use permit PCC-83-5 for 59 unit low income senior housing project at 432-438 "F" Street - City initiated 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-83-2 for reduction of rear yard setback, 613 Broadway - George Merziotis DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS To: City Planning Commission From: Bud Gray, Director of Planning Subject: Staff recport on agenda items for Planning Commission Meeting of August 25, 1982 1. ~equest for two year extension of tentative subdivision map for East Orange Vill_age Condominiums, Chula Vista Tract 80-23, 225-255 ~r_ag~e Avenue A. BACKGROUND On October 14, 1980 the City Council approved the tentative subdivision map known as East Orange Village Condominiums, Chula Vista Tract 80-23, for the purpose of converting a 128 unit apartment complex, located at 225-255 East Orange Avenue in the R-3-P-17 zone, into a one lot condominium project containing 7.36 acres. The developer has requested that the tentative map be extended for a period of two years because of the present unfavorable economic conditions. B. RECO]~]ENDATION Adopt a motion approving a two year extension of the tentative subdivision map known as East Orange Village Condominiums, Chula Vista Tract 80-23. The map will then expire on October 14, 1984. C. DISCUSSION There have been no significant physical changes in the immediate vicinity which affect the original conditions or findings of approval; therefore, the approval of an extension of time is appropriate. EASEMENT ~ zkl o. PRO~: E. ORANGE vlLLA6E ' , /PCS- 80-2:5, ~ CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION. I~l UNI'I~ I '111, I ~ '~ ~ ~ City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 25, 1982 Page 2 2. PUBLIC HEARING (con~.): Conditional use permit PCC-83-1 to establish a day care facility for 20 children at 142 Third Avenue - Hazel Daniels, President, Dan-X Corp. This hearing was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of July 28, 1982 at the request of the applicant so the proposed site plan could be revised. At the time of this report the applicant had not submitted a revised plan or requested another continuance. Since the plans have not been revised, the July 28, 1982 staff report is attached. ~U: ~1 Ly Kl~rlrllr!.g~ bOr[lflllS5 Ion A From: Bud Gr~y, D. ctor of Planning Subject: St~ff report on ~genda items for Planning Commission Meeting of July 28, ]g82 ]. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-83-1; request to establish a day care taclllty at 14z Inlra Avenue - Hazel Daniels (Dan - X Corporation) A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant is requesting permission to establish a day care facility within an existing single family dwelling located at 142 Third Avenue in the R-3 zone. 2. An Initial Study, IS-83-1, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Committee on July 15, 1982. The Committee concluded that there would be no significant environmetal effects and recommended that the Negative Declaration be adopted. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-83-1. 2. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion to deny the request, PCC-83-1. C. DISCUSSION 1. Adjacent zoning and land use. North R-3 single family dwelling South R-3 single family dwelling East R-3 Fredricka Manor West R-3 single family dwelling 2. Existing site characteristics. a. The subject property is a level 55 ft. X 132.6 ft. (7,293 sq. ft.) parcel located on the west side of Third Avenue and almost midway between "D" and "E" Streets. The property is developed with a 936 sq. ft. woodframe single family dwelling with a 220 sq. ft. attached single car garage on the north side of the dwelling. The house is located 15 feet from the front property line, lO feet from the south property line, 7 feet 3 inches from the north property line and 70 feet from the rear property line. A large tree is located at the rear northeast corner of the property. A power utility pole is located in the sidewalk near the southerly property line. b. The surrounding properties are developed with single family dwellings. The closest apartments are located 1 lot away to the south. City Planning Commiss}un Agenda Items for Meeting of July 28, 1982 page 2 3. Proposed use. The proposed day care facility would employ a maximum of 3 persons and would operate between the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. The maximum number of children would not exceed 20 children at any one time. The applicant intends to convert the garage into an arts and crafts room and add a second rest room to the rear of the garage. The rest of the house will be used for classrooms and office space. Parking for 4 cars is to be located in the back of the dwelling with access provided by a l0 ft. wide driveway along the southerly property line. The new driveway would be connected to the existing driveway forming a circular drive and would function as a drop off area. 4. Similar establishments. There are a number of similar establishments within the City of Chula Vista, each somewhat different than the other, however there are similarities. The parking ratio is approximately 1 parking space per employee based on the maximum number of employees on the premises at any one time. The hours range from about 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. five days a week (only one facility has been approved for 24 hours). Outdoor activities usually occur after 9:00 a.m. The maximum number of children is based on standards established by the State. Part of the standards are based on the size of the facility and the amount of play area per child. D. ANALYSIS 1. Access and traffic The mostsignificantproblem is access and potential traffic problems. The access drive to the four parking spaces located at the rear of the existing dwelling is only lO feet wide. The code requires a minimum of 15 feet for one-way traffic and 24 feet for two-way traffic. The problems are compounded by a utility pole in line with the proposed driveway. Either the pole would have to be relocated (an expensive process) or the driveway would have to be shifted to the north approximately 6 to 9 feet causing the driveway to be curved instead of being straight. In addition, such an alignment would virtually eliminate the small amount of landscaping in front of the proposed circular drive and would likely result in the deletion of the existing driveway and the circular drive concept. While the traffic increase is considered insignificant (44 trips per day) the access and on-street parking availability will create problems. Third Avenue is a major street and the dropping off and picking up of children at various times during the day on a 55-foot wide lot will impact adjacent residences. The option of pulling into the driveway and backing out onto the street would constitute a traffic hazard. -2- City Planning Commiss~o~n Agenda Items for Meet of July 28, 1982 page 3 2. Size of the lot Because of the relatively small lot size, the proposed plan results in approximately 40 percent of the lot being paved. The dwelling occupies another 26 to 30 percent of the property leaving only 30 to 34 percent devoted to soft surface or landscaping. The location of the parking leaves the play area rather isolated from the building. 3. Compatibility of land use From the Planning Department's limited review of other child care centers in operation in Chula Vista, it appears that these facilities can co-exist with other residences--some even existing as nonconforming uses in R-1 zones. However, in this particular case, its location would affect the continuity of the single family character of the area. Inserting a day care operation on a narrow lot in between single family dwellings would have an impact on the adjacent properties (the adjoining lot to the south has a walkway on the same side as the proposed driveway). 4. Summary In summary, I believe that; (a)the site is much too small for the proposed use; (b) the 10-foot wide driveway and the problem caused by the existing utility pole does not provide adequate access to the parking located at the rear; (c) the dwelling is relatively small and the proposed play area removed from the building; and, (d) the access and parking would dominate the site plan leaving inadequate areas for landscaping. E. FINDINGS I. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. While the proposed use undoubtedly would provide a service to the community it would not contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood, based on the reasons listed in Item #2 of this report. 2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or tnq)rovoments in the vicinity. The proposed use represents a departure from the single family character of the immediate area and would have an adverse affect on those uses. The access to parking areas does not comply with minimum City safety standards. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified tn the code for such use. -3- City Planning Commis~n ~ Agenda Items for Me6 g of July 28, 1982 page 4 The code requires a driveway of at least 15 feet for one-way traffic and 24 feet for two-way traffic. The proposed plan shows only l0 feet of access. 4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. The granting of this request would not adversely affect the general plan of the City. WPC O132P/OOISZ ML:dl -4- negative eclaration--- PROJECT NAME: The Playhouse Day-Care Center PROJECT LOCATION: 142 Third Avenue PROJECT APPLICANT: Hazel Daniels 33 Doran Court Chu]a Vista, CA 920]0 CASE NO. IS-83-1 DATE: July 15, 1982 A, Project settin9 The project site consists of a 7,260 square foot lot located at 142 Third Avenue. Existing on the lot is a single-family dwelling and one mature jacaranda tree. Single-family dwellings are located to the north, west and south of the site, with a convalescent hospital located across Third Avenue to the east. There are no known geologic hazards present on or near the site, and no rare or endangered plant or animal species have been identified near'the site. B. Project description The project involves the remodeling of an existing single-family dwelling and the reworking of the site in order to operate a child day-care center for up to 20 children at one time. Modifications to the site involve adding a driveway and park- ing area and children's play equipment. C~ Compatibility of zonin9 and plans Approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission will be required prior to the operation of a day-care center. The proposed use is compatible with the General Plan and associated elements. D. Identification of environmental effects Noise Noise levels occurring due to children playing on the premi~ses are con- sidered nuisance noises, which could occur in the rear yard area. Single-family homes located to the north, south and west would be the major receptors of these impacts. These impacts are not anticipated to be significant environmental impacts, but rather issues that should be dealt with through the conditional use permit process to determine compatibility of adjacent land uses, E. Findings of insignificant impact 1. The site is void of any significant natural or man-made resources, and there are no geologic hazards present on the site. city of chula vista planning department environmental review section IS-83-1 -2- 2. The proposed day-care center is compatible with the General Plan and associated elements, and is not anticipated to achieve short-term to the disad- vantage of long-term environmental goals. 3. No impacts are anticipated to occur which could interact to create a substantial cumulative effect on the environment. 4. The project will not cause the emission of any harmful substance or create any significant traffic hazards. F. Consultation 1. Individuals and organizations City of Chu]a Vista Steve Griffin, Associate Planner Bill Harshman, Senior Engineer Tom Dyke, Building Department Ted Monsell, Fire Marshal Duane Bazzel, Assistant Planner' Applicant's designer David Calvani 2. Documents PCC-83-1, the Playhouse Day-Care Center · --!p' in:' :.~'. .'' ': : ' ; .' l~n .~r]~l ,~v.~luation forms documenting the ! ',r. !In ~ ~ ~ ~i~ ',, ;!: ~ · - ~n? '.mD,uct ar~- on ['ilo and available for : .... ........ ;' .c .......... ,'_ ''' ::,~ *'i:;t:a Planning Dept., 276 4th Avenue, ENVIRO~I2r;TAL lIEVrl2I: CCO~.~DZNATOR environmental review lection ;N 6 "D" STREET SF SF SF SF SF SF ~ SF MF SF IMF $F SF $F $F FREDERICKA MANOR , (SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING) MF , MF $F , VAC ~ ~ VAC~ MF I I I I I I I I I I I I I STREET City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 25, 1982 Page 3 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Amendment to conditional use permit PCC-77-1 for expansion of Starlight. Center, 1280 Nolan Avenue - San Diego County Association for Retarded A. BACKGROUND 1. In ~arch, 1977 the Planning Commission approved the master plan for the expansion of the Stalight Center located at 1280 Nolan Avenue (southwest corner of East Oneida Street and Nolan Avenue). The expansion consisted of the addition of a two story, 24,000 sq. ft. structure on the west end of the existing building, which would house workshops and crafts on the first floor and meeting facilities and a cafeteria on the second floor. 2. On February 19, 1982 a building permit was issued for the construction of the first floor of the proposed addition. Work began on the project shortly thereafter, which voluntarily stopped approximately two months ago when it was found that the addition encroached 6' to 7' into the required 20 foot side yard setback along the westerly property line. The encroachment was discovered when the adjacent property owner to the west contacted the Engineering Department with respect to his concern about the drainage from that area. 3. The construction has reached a stage where the foundation has been poured and almost all of the framing is complete. The construction is approxi- mately 60% along. It should be noted that part of the framing consists of sub- stantial steel roof "I" beams across the length of the building. Because of the work and time already invested and the expense to move the walls, the applicant has opted to gain relief from the 20 foot setback through a modification of their approved plan. B. RECOI~ENDATION Based on the findings contained in Section E of this report, adopt a motion to approve the reduction in the required setback from 20 feet to 13 feet, subject to the following conditions: 1. The second story of the new addition shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from the westerly property line. 2. No windows shall be located in the west elevation of the building. 3. The sidewalk on the west side of the addition shall be removed and replaced with landscaping. A revised landscaping and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval by the City Landscape Architect; said landscaping shall include trees and shrubs as well as erosion control planting on the slope. 4. Drainage facilities as shown on Chula Vista drawing No. 71-66 D (revised b), 6-16-82, or alternate approved by the City Engineer, shall be installed. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 25, 1982 Page 4 5. The slope adjacent to the westerly side of the building shall not exceed a ratio of 2 horizontal to one vertical. 6. Any retaining walls required to achieve condition No. 5 shall be shown on drawing No. 71-66-D and constructed under engineering permit 82-5 G. C. DISCUSSION 1. Existing conditions. a. The Starlight Center property abuts two separate parcels to the west. The northerly parcel (304 East Oneida Street) is a 62' X 115' lot which is developed with a two story single family dwelling. The southerly parcel, which is contiguous to the southerly 185 feet of the Starlight Center, is a water tank site. The floor level of the ground floor of the Starlight Center is approxi- mately 6 feet higher than the rear yard area of the adjacent dwelling. There is an existing 2:1 slope between the two properties, with the common property line located midway on the slope. b. The single family dwelling, which is located 7 feet from the common property line, has a front setback of 22 feet and the rear of the house is approx- imately 60 feet from the street right-of-way. The Starlight addition is located approximately 65 feet from the street and extends back another 80 feet. The building height is now planned at 15 feet, with a future second floor planned which would raise the structure to 25 feet in height. There will be no windows on the west elevation. The addition is not parallel to the westerly property line, resulting in the front corner of the building being 14.58 feet from the side property line and the rear corner, 13.08 feet from the same property line. The front of the addition is almost in a direct line with the rear of the single family dwelling and the buildings are 23 feet apart at the closest point. 2. Reason for modification. The applicant has stated that during the pouring of concrete for the founda- tion it was noticed that the building would be located approximately 15 feet from the westerly property line instead of the 20 feet as originally shown on the plans. Rather than changing the footing to conform, the applicant indicated that someone in the City of Chula Vista was contacted and told him that the 15 foot setback would be acceptable provided the wall was of one hour fire construc- tion and a parapet wall was installed at the top of the building. Based on this information the applicant continued construction. It should be noted that applicants are frequently given information for compliance with the Uniform Building Code and told to check further with other affected City Departments regarding additional standards. The applicant then submits revised plans and receives authorized approval in writing. No plan changes reducing the setback were authorized by the City for this property. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 25, 1982 Page 5 D. ANALYSIS 1. The purpose of the 20 foot setback requirement is to provide adequate light and air for adjacent properties and reduce the visual impact of a building of the size proposed for Starlight Center. In this instance only one property is affected, that being the single family dwelling located directly to the west. 2. The approved master plan originally showed the addition maintaining approximately a 42 foot setback from East Oneida Street. The final plans sub- mitted for a building permit indicated a 65 foot setback from the street, which was approved by the Planning Department because it did not affect the master plan concept and exceeded the minimum code requirements. If the building had been located as originally shown it would have overlapped the adjacent single family home by some 20 feet, however, the increase in setback moved the building southerly approximately 23 feet, thus the front of the addition is located near the rear of the dwelling. This location change reduced the impact between the buildinos. The separation between buildings would have been the maximum of 27 feet; w~ereas, the actual separation is slightly more than 23 feet and exists ar only one corner of each building. 3. The 6 feet difference in elevation between the Starlight building pad and the adjacent single family pad amplifies the building mass of the larger Star- light structure. Moving the building 6'-7' further away from the side property line would offer a degree of relief for the adjacent single family dwelling, however, it would be just as effective to heavily landscape the slope, prohibit any window openings in the new structure, and require a substantial offset in the proposed future second story construction. The alternate solution of leaving the building at its present location, subject to the conditions listed, appears to be the most logical and practical way of resolving the setback issue. D. FINDINGS 1. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the c~unity. The facility is an existing use which has a proven history of contributing to the well being of the community; this addition will add to that contribution. 2. That such use will not, under the oirc~$tances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons reeiding or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The increase in front setback increases the amount of light and air of the adjacent property, and the conditions of approval will preclude the creation of any detrimental effects to persons in the area. City Planning Co~is~ion Agenda Items for ~eeting of August 25, 1982 Page 6 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the Cod~ for such use. The wall will be of one hour construction and the building location meets the intent of the Code with respect to light and air. 4. That the granting of this conditional use pe~nit will not adversely affect the C~neral Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any gover~nental agency. Approval of this request will not affect the General Plan. ~ VAC SFD ~ ~ V.~ ~ CENTER % SFD t [ WATER VAC % ~ TANK SE'D City Planning Commission Page 7 Agenda Items for Meetin§ of August 25, 1982 4. PIIRII£ HFARING: £onditional Use Permit PCC-83-5; establish a Senior Citizen Rental Housing Project at 432-438 "F" Street A. BACKGROUND 1. The City of Chula Vista Community Development Department together with the San Diego County Housing and Community Development Department is requesting permission to construct a 59-unit rental housing project for low income senior citizens (62 years of age and older) on approximately one acre of property located at 432-438 "F" Street in the R-3 zone. 2. An Initial Study, IS-82-32, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Committee on May 27, 1982. The Committee concluded that there would be no significant environmetal effects and recommended that the Negative Declaration be adopted. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-82-32. 2. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion to approve the reouest, PCC-83-5, to establish a 59-unit rental housing project for low income senior citizens at 432-438 "F" Street subject to the following condition: The south side of "F" Street shall be widened to 32 feet from center line to face of curb along the full frontage of the property with a transition beginning at the west property line. Monolithic curb, gutter and sidewalk are to be installed in accordance with Regional StanOard G-3. An improvement plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer for this work. C. DISCUSSION 1. Adjacent zoning and land use. North C-O Civic Center/Fire Station South R-3 Apartments East C-O Professional Office and Real Estate School West R-3 Apartment Driveway and Apartments City Planning Commiss~ Agenda Items for Meeting of August 25, 1982 Page 8 2. Existing site characteristics. The project site is located on the south side of "F" Street between Fourth and Fifth Avenues and directly across the Civic Center. The site is comprised of six parcels totaling 0.98 acres. Three of the parcels front on "F" Street (combined 150 feet of street frontage) are developed with single family dwellings and the other three parcels are landlocked vacant lots located directly behind and to the south of the other parcels. The overall depth is 290 feet. The project site slopes gently downward to the south approximately l0 feet. A drainage easement traverses the southerly portion of the site. Tmere are a number of mature trees on the property. 3. Proposed use. The proposeo use is a low income senior citizen rental housing project for individuals 62 years of age and older. The tenants will pay no more than 30% of their income toward rent. The property is presently owned by the City of Chula Vista but will be sold to the County of San Diego Housing Authority who will then own and operate the facility. 4. Project description. a. T~e project will consist of 59 one-bedroom units within a single U-shaped three-story structure which will actually have four levels at one point. There will be three basic floor plans, each containing a kitchen, bath, living room, beoroom and either a patio or a balcony. The number and area of the units are as follows: 48 "A" units - 544 sQ. ft. (one used for the manager); 5 "B" units - 600 sQ. ft.; and, 6 "C" units - 563 sQ. ft. The "C" units will be for handicapped persons. There will be a community room with kitchen facilities and restrooms on the front ground level. An elevator is located near the lobby and the manager's office. A terrace is located off the community room overlooking an interior patio area. b. The site will be graded to create two pad levels with the rear level approximately 10 feet lower than the front thereby creating four building levels near the front. The building will be a maximum of three stories at each level and will step down so that the front ground floor and secono floor will be at the same level as the second and third floors of the rear portion. c. The applicant intends to provide 26 parking spaces which will be locatea in front of the building with access provided by a two-way drive at the east side of the property. There will be 2 handicapped spaces, ll regular spaces, and 13 compact spaces. The parking ratio will be 0.42 spaces per unit or slightly less than one space for each two units. A recently approved senior housing project at Fifth anO Park Way was approved with 40 parking spaces for 48 units, a ratio of 0.83 spaces per unit. It should be noted, however, that the other project was a condominium development and staff had recommended a 1 to 1 parking ratio. City Planning Commiss, Agenda Items for Meeting of August 25, 1982 Page 9 The applicant conducted a phone survey in January of this year, contacting 10 senior citizen projects in the San Diego area, to determine parking needs. (A copy of that study is attached.) The study concluded that a parking ratio of .25 to .45 spaces per unit was typical for senior projects such as the proposed "F" Street Project. Therefore, the .44 ratio proposed will De adequate. 5. Exceptions to Code ReQuirements. The proposed project deviates from the density, parking, and setback requirements of the R-3 zone. The exceptions are reflected in the following table: Regulation ReQuired Proposed Difference Density 32.4 DU's per acre 62 DU's per acre 28 additional units Parking 69 on site spaces 26 spaces 43 less 7 compacts 13 compacts 6 more Setback 25 foot setback 17 feet 8 feet less for parking D. ANALYSIS 1. The applicant has submitted information regarding the adequacy of the amount of parking provided for the proposed project. Since the project will be operated by the County Housing Authority, they will be able to monitor the number of persons with cars. The Planning Department is satisfied that given the age, income, and location the parking will be adequate. 2. The project site is adjacent to commercial development which has a lO-foot setback. In addition, the parking areas within the Civic Center are located closer than 25 feet to the street and in some cases there is no landscaping between the parking and the street. The proposed 17 feet of landscaping (measured from the back of the new sidewalk) is in keeping with the surrounding area. 3. The increase in density reduces the overall cost per unit which is essential for a low income rental project. The density has been achieved without loss of private open space, percentage of landscaping, or unit size, and without exceeding the height limitation of the zone. The apartment project located airectly to the south is also three stories in height, thus, the proposed development is in keeping with the surrounding area. E. FINDINGS 1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. The proposed use will provide the needed housing for low income senior citizens of the City of Chula Vista. The project site is within close proximity to public transportation and other public facilities such as the library. City Planning Commiss Agenda Items for Meeting of August 25, 1982 Page l0 2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detri~ntal to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed development will not exceed three stories in height and the parking ratio is within keeping with HUD's standards for senior citizen housing projects. Therefore, the proposed use will not be detrimental or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. A building permit will be required for the development of the project which will ensure that the proposed development meets the Uniform Building Code and Fire Regulations. 4. That the granting of this conditional use pe~qnit will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. The proposed use is in keeping with the omnibus amendment to the General Plan regarding senior citizen housing projects. WPC O142P/OO15Z 'negative' Jeclaration PROJECT NAME: "F" Street Senior Housing PROJECT LOCATION: 432-38 "F" Street, Chula Vista, Calif. PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA CASE NO. IS-82-32 DATE: May 27, 1982 A. Project Setting The project site involves six parcels located at 432, 436 and 438 'F" Street. Three single family dwellings are located on the three lots fronting on "F" Street and the remaining three lots are located south of these lots. A drainage easement is located across the southerly portion of the lots. Adjacent land uses consist of a vocation school and parking lot to the east, multiple family units to the south and west, and "F" Street and the Civic Center to the north. The site, which would be consolidated into one parcel, supports abundant vegetation, including many mature trees located throughout the property. B. Project Description The applicant proposes to construct a total of 59 one and two bedroom units designed as a public housing project for senior citizens. A total of 26 parking spaces are proposed in addition to appropriate landscaping. Approximately ten mature trees will be removed through grading for the project, which slopes down away from "F" Street. C. Compatibility with zoning and plans The project is located within the R-3 (multi-family) zone and the "high density" (13-26 DU/acre) designation of the General Plan. As a senior citizen project the density can be increased through approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission and City Council. The proposed density is 59 DU/acre. D. Identification of environmental effects 1. Soils Expansive soils have been identified on the project site. Recommendations Contained in a soils report prepared by Geocon, Inc. for a previous project on this site should be incorporated into the project to insure stable construction. 2. Schools Schools in the vicinity of the project should not be affected by the project since occupancy will be limited to senior citizens only. city of chuli vista planning department f~l~.,.Al~'~ environmental review aectlon Case No. IS-82-32 Page 2 3. Aesthetics The applicant proposes to remove approximately ten mature trees (ranging from fruit trees and pepper trees to palm trees). The applicant shall make every effort to retain existing trees where possible. The City's Landscape Architect shall consider the disposition of all existing trees on site. 4. Traffic. The present level of service (LOS) for "F" Street is 'D'; althounh implementation of the project will amount to 295 additional vehicle trips per day, the level of service should not drop significantly. 5. Parks The project site, which is located in Park District No. 3 is within one-quarter mile of Memorial Park and one-half mile of Norman Park. Both parks have community services for senior citizens. E. M~itigation necessary to avoid significant effects 1. Recommendations included in the soils report prepared by Geocon, Inc. (February, 1980) shall be incorporated into the proposed project subject to approval of the Building Department. 2. The disposition of existing on-site trees shall be reviewed by the City's Landscape Architect prior to any demolition or Building Permit approval. F. Findings of no significant impact, 1. The site is void of any endangered wildlife; however, there is an abundant variety of mature trees present. Review by the City's Landscape Architect will insure that existing trees will be preserved and included in the planting design where feasible. There are no geological hazards present in the project vicinity4 Impacts due to expansive soils can be mitigated. 2. The proposed project is in conformance with the General Plan and associated elements, and is not anticipated to achieve short term to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals. 3. All potential impacts can be mitigated to an insignificant level and there are no impacts foreseen which could interact to create any significant cumulative effects on the environment. 4. The project will not cause any substantial increase in ambient noise levels and no significant source of hazardous emissions will result. Case No. IS-82-32 Page 3 G. Consultation City of Chula Vista Steve Griffin, Associate Planner Bill Harshman, Senior Engineer Tom Dyke, Building Department Ted Monsell, Fire Marshall Duane Bazzel, Assistant Planner Pam Buchan, Administrative Analyst Documents: IS-80-31, Casa de Miguel IS-82-1, Park Fifth Avenue Condominiums PCC-82-4, Bordi, Sutherland and Palumbo Thc Initial .qtu<l'/ ,',.?p! [c ~ion and ,~valuation fcrms documenting the findin~; ~3 no ~,~n~ F~n~ in?act a~(~ on [ilo and available for public r~vic%v .~t ~h,~ Chu[.~ Vi[ira Planninq D,npt., 276 4th Av~nue, ChuLa %'i~;ta, CA E ~ :E .,EVrSiW COOF~Z2~ATOR city of chula vista planning department environmental review section ~ n~ ~ Los Angeles Ar~ ~ice, Region IX ' =.~.~i.. o 2500 Witshire Ek. ~ard % JJ~ ~ Los Angele3, California 90057 REC iVEi.) JUN ! 6 JUN 17 1982 Gabrie 1 Rodriquez, Deputy Director ,,u~,~ & C~=,~;;--:/~ ,;~;,=~t Housing Authority of the County of San Diego ATTENTION: Mr. Mitch Thompson 7917 Gstrow Street San Diego, CA 92111 Centlemen: This letter is in response to your request for information · egarding the ratio of parking spaces to ~tnits in subsidized elderly projects, which have been built under programs administered by our office. The Architectural and Engineering Branch of the Los Angeles Area Office has overseen the design and development of countless numbers of senior citizen projects in the Southern California area. In this time, experience has shown that a ratio of .25 parking spaces per unit is adequate to serve the needs of the residents of given projects. In a number of cases, parking ratios much lower that .25 have been acceptable. Two recently-completed projects in the City of San Diego (Examples: Horton House and LionsiCormnunity Manor} are both in downtown San Diego with a ratio of approximately .1. The parking ratio of .44 parking spaces per unit more than meets the acceptable standards of this office. ~ If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. George Bradvica at (213) 688-5152. Sin relY, _ m Terry Z,~} lhar~ Deputy ~irec~or Multifamily Development, 9.2HD Parking Needs Survey for Proposed 59-Unit Elderly Public Housing Project, at 432,438 "F" St., Chula Vista, CA Purpose A telephone survey was conducted on January 12, 1982 by Housing Authority of the County of San Diego in order to establish parking needs for the proposed 59-unit elderly public housing project to be located at 432-438 "F" Street in the City of Chula Vista. The survey attempts to establish the need for parking spaces by drawing on the experience of existing subsidized projects in the San Diego area. -Methodology A phone survey was conducted in which resident managers of subsidized senior projects in the San Diego area were asked for information regarding the number of dwelling units, the number of parking spaces provided, whether or not there was a need for more spaces than were provided by the project as evidenced by either an existing waiting list, expressed interest by residents for more parking spaces, and/or resident manager estimates of actual need. Background HUD subsidized (Section 236 and Section 8) projects were surveyed from a listing published by the San Diego area HUD office. Additionally several unsubsidized senior projects built under the City of San Diego senior density bonus program were surveyed for further comparision~ The HUD subsidized projects generally contain seniors whose incomes are at or below 80% of median with the majority of occupants receiving basic social security benefits. Occupants must be at least 62 years of age. The density bonus projects tend to have senior residents with slightly higher average incomes and generally have a lower minimum age restriction of 55 years old. These projects will therefore generally have a slightly higher level of resident parking demand than the subsidized projects. Projects surveyed (with the exception of Westminster Manor which is located in the inner-city, and Lakeside Gardens, which is located in Lakeside) are located in suburban, moderate-density locations in close proximity to major bus routes as is the case with the "F" Street site in Chula Vista. EXHIBIT Results Parking need ratios (spaces per unit) for projects surveyed ranged between .19 and .58 spaces per unit. All but one project, Lakeside Gardens, had parking need ratios at .45 or below. Residents of Lakeside Gardens, generally have a somewhat greater need for private automobiles due to the lower level of services in Lakeside, and less frequent bus service and no Dial-A-Ride service as opposed to-the other surveyed projects as well as the "F" Street site. Conclusion The eight projects surveyed which were most comparable to the proposed "F" Street project in Chula Vista had parking needs ratios ranging between .25 and .45 parking spaces' per unit. To assure adequate parking a parking ratio of approximately .45 is necessary. The development plan, as proposed, would include 26 parking spaces to yield a parking ratio of .44 which will adequately serve the needs of the proposed project. ';~ ~ROSECT Number c--- Number of Est-,ted Ratio: Estimated ~" Dwelling Existing Tot Need for need to number of Units Parking Spaces Parking Spaces dwelling units l~Lakeshore Villas 125 40 57 '.45 688 Golfcrest San Diego, CA (Section 8) Casa Colina 74 32 32' .43 Del Sol 5207 52nd Pl. San Diego, CA ' (Section 8) Congregational 185 44 54 .29 Towers · 288 "F" Street Chula Vista, CA (Section 236) Lakeside Gardens 85 100 50 .58 12219 Roberts Wy. Lakeside, CA (Section 236) Wesley Terrace 160 54 47 .29 5343 Monroe Ave. San Diego, CA (Section 236) Westminster Manor 156 30 20 .19 1730 Third Ave. San Diego, CA (Section 236) Orchards Apts. I 275 70 70 .25 (62 or over) , 4040 Hancock San Diego, CA City D~nsity Bonus Orchards Apts. 2 288 96 96 .33 (55 or over) 4040 Hancock San Diego, CA City Density Bonus Olivewood Gardens 60 47 27 .45 (55 and over) 2865 56th St. San Diego, CA City Density Bonus The Springs 129 47 56 .43 8070 Orange Ave. La Mesa, CA 92041 (Section 8) I II I I I .... -1 tI I I / I- L I , ~- --t I CIVIC CENTER i I I MF~MF MF "F" Street SFI I iSFI I I I ~ I IIMFIMF~--I I -I MF I SF iMFi I ! _1_.I_ + I_L. q _ ,L--r _ _ _1 I IMF ', BANK r- ' I I I I I ' g ST. I I ~FI TF ~ TF I SFI I I MF i I I I MEDICAL -1 I ~ /~ ~ Senior Citizen Housing If LOCATOR /-ltl ' ' / PCC-85-5 l II~I~ II Page ll City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 25, 1982 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-83-2 for reduction_o__f.~ea_ryard setback fro_ ..m~_2~.' fgpit' to ~ feet at 713 Broadway - George Merzio~i~ A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant is seeking a reduction in the required 25 foot rear yard setback in order to construct a commercial structure to within 5 feet of the rear yard property line at 713 Broadway in the C-T zone. 2. An Initial Study, IS-83-3, of possible environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Committee on August 12, 1982. The Committee concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended that the Negative Declaration be adopted. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-83-3 together with the following mitigating measures: a. Air conditioning units shall be roof mounted, located midpoint front to rear and screened to avoid adverse noise impacts on adjacent residen- tial property. b. The easterly elevation shall be architecturally treated to soften the visual impact on the adjacent residential uses and the parapet on the single story structure along the easterly elevation shall be deleted. c. Security lighting within the rear yard area, except at the area of parking, if desired, shall be limited to under 6 feet in height above finished grade. 2. Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion to approve the request, ZAV-83-2, subject to the following conditions: a. The development (including a sign program) shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning. b. Both the one and two story portions of the building shall be reduced in overall height by adhering to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code to reduce the height of parapet walls along the e~sterly elevation c. The second story shall be located a minimum of 10 feet from the easterly property line. d. Approval of this request is subject to the mitigating measures listed in the Negative Declaration on IS-83-3. Page 12 Cit~y Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 25, 1982 C. DISCUSSION 1. Adjacent zoning and land use: North C-T Drive-through liquor/delicatessen/gas station South C-T Tavern and single family residence East R-3 Apartments West C-T Retail commercial 2. Existing site characteristics. The subject property is a 22,800 sq. ft. level lot with 190 feet of frontage on the east side of Broadway, 100 feet south of "J" Street, and lot depth of 120 feet. The site is currently being used as a used car lot and is developed with a small office structure located on the northeast corner of the property. 3. Proposed development. a. The applicant has submitted a sketch plan which shows the construction of an "L" shaped commercial structure adjacent to the southerly property line and to within 5 feet of the easterly property line. The single story structure, which will contain 3,000 sq. ft. of retail space, has a 90 ft. long span of the building adjacent to the east property line, whereas, the 7,280 sq. ft. two story structure will have a 35 ft. long portion adjacent to the east property line. The second story portion of the building will set back 10 feet from the easterly property line, which will create a 5 ft. wide offset in the easterly elevation. The single story portion of the building will be approximately 15.5 feet in height adjacent to the east property line, and the two story, 27.5 feet. b. The plan shows a total of 35 parking spaces onsite with two access driveways on Broadway. The code requires a total of 40 offstreet parking spaces (3,000 sq. ft. e 200 sq. ft. : 15, plus 7,280 sq. ft. ? 300 sq. ft. = 24.25; a total of 40 spaces). The applicant will have to reduce the amount of floor space in order to meet the parking requirements. C. DISCUSSION 1. The majority of Broadway is zoned C-T Thoroughfare Commercial, more commonly classified as strip commercial. Strip commercial has traditionally created various problems associated with vehicular traffic, aesthetics, and pedestrian inconvenience. Some of these problems can be traced to an insufficient lot depth. Present day development standards, which include requirements for offstreet parking, landscaping, and setbacks, demand more depth for strip commer- cial areas. 2. The regulations of the C-T zone are basically designed to accommodate development on lots having a depth of 200 feet or greater. The depth of the C-T zone along Broadway varies from 60 feet to 600 feet and in most cases abuts residen- tially zoned areas. Because of this great variation in depth, there have been a number of variances requesting relief from the setback required between commercial and residential development. Page 13 City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 25, 1982 3. The subject property has only 120 feet of lot depth and a combined front and rear yard setback requirement of 35 feet, leaving an 85 foot wide area in which buildings may be located. While it is possible to place the buildings near the street and put the parking at the rear, this is undesirable for various reasons. Parking at the rear requires the use of more land for circulation and makes parking less visible to passing motorists. It also makes it inconvenient for patrons and affects the design of the commercial floor space, often requir- ing a rear entrance from the parking area. Parking may also effect adjacent residential areas depending on the hours of operation. 4. The Negative Declaration addresses three major points. They are: noise, aesthetics and lighting. The report indicates that the buildings will actually cause a reduction in the amount of noise received by the adjacent apartments from Broadway. The reduction will increase the visual impact of the structure. The mitigation measures require the overall reduction in height of the single story building by some 2½ feet and will require aesthetic treatment of the easterly elevation. 5. As mentioned earlier, predicated on the square footage of the building and anticipated uses, the sketch plan is short on parking. A reduction in floor area of 1,O00-1,500 square feet will be necessary to build the project in compliance with city parking standards. A reduction in floor area could result in a larger offset of the second story building. E. FINDINGS 1. ~hat a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in developin~ the property 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 neighborin~ 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. The 120 foot lot depth of the subject property creates difficulties in developing when complying with the zoning requirements for parking, landscaping and setbacks as established for the C-T zone. 2. ~hat such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would nct constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors. The setbacks established in the C-T zone are designed to accommodate develop- ment on lots with adequate lot depth and, therefore, places a hardship on the effective development of this site. Other properties in the i~nediate vicinity are developed with setbacks of less than 25 feet. 3. That the authori~ of s~ch variance will not be of substantial detriment to a~acent property, and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter or the public interest. The buildings will help reduce the impact of noise generated along Broadway from the residential use to the east. The height limitations placed on the commercial building will also minimize its impact on the adjoining single family area. Page 14 City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 25, 1982 4. That the authorizin~ of sueh variance will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan ofany governmental agency. The General Plan is not affected by the granting of this request. MITIGATED negative declaration PRF~JECT NA~E: Merziotis Properties Commercial Building PROJECT I~OCATION: 713 Broadway, Chula Vista, CA PROJECT APPLICANT: George Merziotis, 701 Broadway, Chula Vista, CA 92010 CA:;~ NO. IS-83-3 DATE: August 5, 1982 A. Project Setting The project site consists of a 22,800 sq. ft. lot currently developed with a small office structure and a used car lot. Multiple family units are existing east of the project site, a liquor-deli store to the north, a bar and dwelling to the south and retail commercial uses across Broadway to the west. There are no known geologic hazards in the project vicinity, nor are there are endangered plant or animal species on the project site. B. Project Description The project involves the construction of 3,000 square feet of retail floor space contained in a one story structure, and the construction of 7,280 square feet of office floor space contained in a two story structure. A total of 35 parking spaces have been provided with two driveway access points on Broadway. C. Compatibilit~ w__ith zon~nj_a.nd___plans The proposed use is compatible with the zoning ordinance and the General Plan, although the applicant proposes a reduction in the required rear yard setback from 25 feet to 5 feet. The oroDosed variance will require approval by the Planning Commission prior to any Construction on the site. D. Identification of environmental effects 1. Noise. Construction of both the one and two story structures within 5 feet of the property line and the construction of a 6 ft. high masonry zoning wall along the easterly property line will significantly reduce present Broadway traffic noise levels experienced at the residential properties east of the project site. Steps should be taken to assure that commercial activity be limited to areas within the proposed structures and not outdoor areas at the rear of the buildings. Since the proposed structures are to be air conditioned, it is anticipated that rear access doors will remain closed. Air conditioners shall be roof mounted and screened to avoid excess noise on the residential area. ~ city of chula vista planning department environmental review section IS-83-3 Page 2 2. Aesthetics Adverse visual impacts may occur due to the close proximity of the proposed structures and the proposed 20 ft. building height in relation to the residential units. This impact can be reduced by the planting of trees adjacent to the proposed structures. The spacing, size, and species should be coordinated with the City's Landscape Architect to assure compatibility. Security lighting at the rear of the proposed structures, if proposed, should be limited to 6 feet in height to avoid excess glare on the adjacent residential property. E. ~iti~ation necessa__cy to avoid significant effects Air conditioning units shall be roof mounted, located midpoint front to rear and screened to avoid adverse noise impacts on adjacent residential property. 2. The easterly elevation be architecturally treated to soften the visual impact on the adjacent residential uses and the parapet on the single story structure along the easterly elevation shall be deleted. 3. Security lighting within the rear yard area except at the area of parking, if desired, shall be limited to under 6 feet in height above finished grade. F. Findings of ins]_gnificant impact 1. The site is void of any natural or manmade resources, and there are no geologic hazards present on the site. Proposed mitigation will insure that the project will not degrade the quality of the environment. 2. The retail/office development is consistent with the General Plan and associated elements and is not anticipated to achieve short term to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals. 3. No impacts are anticipated to occur which could interact to create a substantial cumulative effect on the environment. 4. The project will not cause the emission of any harmful substances, and recommended mitigation will reduce any potential noise sources to a level of insignificance. No impacts are anticipated that could prove hazardous to the health and welfare of human beings. IS-83-3 ~ Page 3 G. Consultation 1. Individuals and organizations City of Chula Vista Steve Griffin, Associate Planner Bill Harshman, Senior Engineer Tom Dyke, Building Department Ted Monsell, Fire Marshal Duane Bazzel, Assistant Planner Jim Algert, applicant's designer 2. Documents Chula Vista Municipal Code The Initial Study Application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of no significant impact are on file and available for public hearing at the Chula Vista Planning Dept., 276 4th Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010 EN%IROh,'~E.~t~L REV,IEIq~ COOP~INATOR city of chula vista planning department ~ environmental review section EN 6 SHO~ R ET~JR SUPPLY U~ED FURN. SF AUTO STC~E Sic, REP. USED SF CAR LOT STREE I ! ! ! ~ L.DT / I I *n~ dA~ Au~FO STORE' ;T.