Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1983/07/27 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, July 27, 1983 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of June 22, 1983 ORAL COM~IUNICATIONS 1. PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued) PCA-83-2, Consideration of various amendments to the Municipal Code relating to amusement facilities and games 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-84-1, Request for reduction in the required front yard setback along Casselman and 'D' Streets - Appel Development Corporation 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional use permit PCC-83-23, Request to expand pre-school and day care facility located at 406 'I' Street to the south at 610 Fourth Avenue - Louise and Clifford Peterson DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT to the Regular Business Meeting of August 10, 1983 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. To: City Planning Commission From: Bud Gray, Director of Planning Subject: Staff report on agenda items for Planning Commission Meeting of July 27, 1983 1. PUBLIC HEARING (Continued): PCA 82-2 Consideration of various amendments to the Municipal Code relating to amusement facilities and 9ames A. BACKGROUND On June 22, 1983, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing on this matter. After receiving public testimony and discussing the proposed amendments, the matter was continued by the Planning Commission. The public hearing was not closed, therefore additional testimony may be received. A copy of the June 22, 1983, staff report is attached hereto. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that the project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-83-23. 2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance amending the Municipal Code relating to amusement facilities and games as shown on attached Exhibits "A" and "B" (PCA-82-2). The ordinance shall be effective (90) days after the second reading. C. DISCUSSION Comments made at the Planning Commission meeting regarding the proposed amendments included the following: 1. Accessory uses (3 or less games) should also be required to: a. Prohibit game play by minors during normal school whenever they are located within 1000 feet of a school (proposed condition 19.58.040 4a); b. Provide adult supervision at all times (proposed condition 19.58.040 4b); c. Provide a bike rack for at least 3 bicycles (proposed condition 19.58.040 4c modified); and d. Prohibit the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages on the premises (proposed condition 19.58.040 4d) excepting, therefrom, markets. 2. A policy establishing a time period for businesses having more than 3 games to apply for a conditional use permit or in which to comply with the new regulations. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 27, 1983 Page 2 The suggestions offered at the Commission meeting were made with the intent of requiring businesses having amusement games as accessory uses to also be subject to some of the same regulations governing amusement game centers. The idea being that even a limited number of amusement games may create problems and therefore need to be regulated. There have been isolated instances where the accessory uses have created problems. However, for the most part the larger amusement centers have shown the need to have conditions of approval or standards attached to their operation. The suggestion which appears to have the most merit is the prohibition of game play by minors when located within 1,000 feet of a school. The intent of the regulation is to establish a certain distance from the schools which would discourage unauthorized absences and school children leaving the school grounds during lunch and recess. The further a use is located from the school the less likely that school children will leave the school grounds to patronize the machines. It is staff's opinion that the regulation of accessory amusement game uses (3 or less) would constitute a very difficult enforcement situation for the City's Zoning Enforcement Officer. For example, requiring adult supervision would pose a problem wherein amusement games include mechanical rides and other coin operated machines. The rides are often placed in one area where no supervision is provided. Amusement machines are placed in laundromats which do not have any supervision on the premises. In summary, staff does not recommend the inclusion of additional regulations for accessory uses involving amusement games (3 or less). The staff is in favor of establishing a time period for businesses to apply for a conditional use permit or to comply with the new regulations. It is suggested that businesses be given 90 days in which to either apply for a use permit or comply with the regulations. WPC 0392P City Planotng Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 22, 1983 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA 82-2 - Consideration of various amendments to the Municipal Code relating to amusement facilities and games A. BACKGROUND 1. The Code presently lists amusement parks and centers as unclassified uses requiring a conditional use permit. There is no definition or provision for amusement games (e.g. video, pinball, etc.) as accessory uses. Therefore, the City could require a C.U.P. to be filed for the installation of even one game machine. However, the City has been allowing up to three games to be considered accessory to the primary use of the property. 2. The purpose of the proposed amendments is to establish a clear definition of amusement games as accessory uses and to establish standards for amusement centers. 3. An Initial Study, IS-83-23, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator, who on May 26, 1983, concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-83-23. 2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance amending the Municipal Code relating to amusement facilities and games as shown on attached Exhibits "A" and "B" (PCA-82-2). C. DISCUSSION 1. Amusement facilities There are a variety of amusement facilities ranging from a large amusement park such as Disneyland to a small arcade or center. Some facilities such as bowling alleys, pool rooms and billiard parlors are so distinctive and unique they have been specifically addressed in the Code. The must recent amusement facility to emerge is the video game center. Because of their unique characteristics, it is felt that standards should be developed governing their operation to ensure their compatibility with other land uses and to minimize potential adverse impacts. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 22, 1983 2. Need to define Since the Code does not define the various amusement facilities, it becomes necessary to do so in order to specifically establish standards relating to video game centers and similar uses. The same rationale holds true with respect to defining what constitutes an accessory amusement use. 3. Proposed amendments The proposed amendments can be summarized as follows: a. Definitions - Defines amusement facilities, amusement parks, amusement centers and accessory uses. A limitation of three machines is proposed for accessory uses as well as the amount of floor space which may be devoted to the machines. b. Uses - Establishes standards for amusement centers relating to setbacks, adult supervision, bicycle racks, hours for school children during normal school hours, as well as locational criteria. The standards proposed are essentially in keeping with those established for recently approved game centers. 4. Compliance with the proposed regulations Because there is no clear definition for accessory amusement uses, there are a number of establishments which have more than three machines. Each machine must be licensed on a quarterly basis. Even so, there are some establishments which have unlicensed games which becomes an enforcement issue. If the proposed amendments are enacted, it should be possible to achieve compliance relatively quickly at least for those establishments which have licensed machines. Identifying and licensing illegal machines will require more enforcement and awareness of the new regulations by the business community. This awareness can be accomplished by sending a letter to each business at the time their business license is up for renewal. D. CONCLUSION With proper standards and regulations, amusement centers can be good neighbors in certain commercial and industrial zones. Defining what constitutes an accessory use will eliminate the present uncertainty and confusion regarding the number of games allowed as accessory uses. WPC 0330P EXHIBIT "A" Chapter 19.04 DEFINITIONS Add new section 19.04.013 to read as follows: Section 19.04.013 Amusement facilities "Amusement facility" means a place of amusement or entertainment wherein are found games, rides (animal or mechanical), coin or token operated machines or devices (e.g. video and pinball), shooting galleries, movies or entertainment machines and other games of skill or chance offered to the public. This definition does not include vending, photocopying laminating and photo machines. A. "Amusement arcade or center" means a facility wherein are found games, coin or token operated machines or devices (e.g. video and pinball machines) of skill, chance or entertainment offered to the public. B. "Amusement park" means an amusement facility encompassing several acres of land and may include other commercial activities such as restaurants, retail stores and services. C. "Amusement games or machines as accessory uses" means not more than three coin or token operated machines, rides or devices (e.g. video, pinball, mechanized rides and other electronic games) within any commercial retail or service establishment and provided they do not constitute more than five percent (5%) of the floor area of the establishment. EXHIBIT "B" Chapter 19.58 USES Delete Section 19.58.040 "Amusement center, bowling alley, dance, etc." and replace with the following: Section 19.58.040 Amusement and entertainment facilities Amusement and entertainment facilities such as bowling alleys, dance halls, amusement parks and other similar recreational facilities shall be subject to the following development standards: 1. All structures shall maintain a minimum setback of twenty feet (20') from any residential zone; 2. Ingress and egress from the site shall be designed so as to minimuze traffic congestion and hazards; 3. Adequate controls or measures shall be taken to prevent offensive noise and vibration from any indoor or outdoor activity onto adjacent properties; or uses; 4. Amusement arcades or centers shall also be subject to the following: a. Any establishment within 1000 feet of a school (public or private) shall prohibit game play by minors during normal school hours; b. There shall be adult supervision at all times; c. A bicycle rack for at least ten bicycles shall be provided at or near the main entrance into the establishment; d. No alcoholic beverages shall be sold or consumed on the premises, except in those instances where a restaurant in conjunction with said use has been approved through the conditional use permit process; e. At least one public restroom shall be provided on the premises. The Planning Commission has the right to impose additional standards or waive any of the above standards on the finding that said standard/s are or are not necessary to protect the health safety and general welfare of the surrounding properties and/or uses. WPC 0328P negative Jeclaration PROJECT NAME: Zoning Text Amendment Relating to Amusement Facilities and Games PROJECT LOCATION: City of Chula Vista PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista Planning Department CASE NO: IS-83-23 DATE: June 2, 1983 A. Project Setting: This project is not site specific. B. Project Description: Amend the Chula Vista Municipal Code (Section 19.04.0)3 and ~9.§8.040) to read as follows: Chapter 19.04 DEFINITIONS Add new section 19.04.013 to read as follows: Section 19.04.013 Amusement facilities "Amusement facility" means a place of amusement or entertainment wherein are found games, rides (animal or mechanical), coin or token operated machines or devices (e.g. video and pinball), shooting galleries, movies or entertainment machines and other games of skill or chance offered to the public. This definition does not include vending, photocopying, laminating and photo machines. A. "Amusement arcade or cen~er" means a. facility wherein are found games, coin or token operated machines or devices (e.g. video and pinball machines) of skill, chance or entertainment offered to the public. B. "Amusement park" means an amusement facility encompassing several acres of land and may include other commercial activities such as restaurants, retail stores and services~ C. "Amusement games or machines as accessory uses" means not more than three coin or token operated machines, rides or devices (e.g. video, pinball, mechanized rides and other electronic games) within any commercial retail or service establishment and provided they do not constitute more than five percent (5%) of the floor area of the establishment. city of chula vista planning department environmental review section Chapter 19.58 USES Delete Section 19.58.040 "Amusement center, bowling alley, dance hall, etc." and replace with the following: Section 19.58.040 Amusement and entertainment facilities Amusement and entertainment facilities such as bowling alleys, dance halls, amusement parks and other similar recreational facilities shall be subject to the following development standards: 1. All structures shall maintain a minimum setback of twenty feet (20') from any residential zone; 2. Ingress and egress from the site shall be designed so as to minimize traffic congestion and hazards; 3. Adequate controls or measures shall be taken to prevent offensive noise and vibration from any indoor or outdoor activity onto adjacent properties; or uses; 4. Amusement arcades or centers shall also be subject to the following: a. Any establishment within 1000 feet of a school (public or private) shall prohibit game play by minors during normal school hours; b. There shall be adult supervision at all times; c. A bicycle rack for at least~ ten bicycles shall be provided at or near the main entrance into the establishment; d. No alcoholic beverages shall be sold or consumed on the premises, except in those instances where a restaurant in conjunction with said use has been approved through the conditional use permit process; e. At least one public restroom shall be provided on the premises. The Planning Commission has the right to impose additional standards or waive any of the above standards on the finding that said standard/s are or are not necessary to protect the health safety and general welfare of the surrounding properties and/or uses. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans: The proposed project is compatible with the zoning ordinance and is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. D. Findings of Insignificant Impact: 1. The project involves a zoning text amendment and is not site specific, therefore, no natural or man-made resources will be affected. Each proposed project considered under these provisions will be subject to additional environmental review. 2. The proposed amendment is not at variance with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and short term goals will not be achieved to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals. 3. There are no impacts anticipated to occur which could interact to create a substantial cumulative impact on the environment. 4. The zoning text amendment will not adversely affect ambient noise levels nor will it affect air quality. No hazards to human beings will result. E. Consultation: 1. City of Chula Vista Steve Griffin, Associate Planner Duane Bazzel, Assistant Planner 2. Documents Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. city of chula vista planning department eflvironmental review section EH 6 (Rev. 12/82) City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 27, 1983 Page 3 2. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE, ZAV-84-1; REQUEST FOR REDUCTION IN FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR PARKING - APPEL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant is requesting a reduction in the front yard setback of a 1.5 acre lot located between Casselman and "D" Streets (500 block) and 200 feet east of Broadway in the R-3 zone from 20 feet to approximately 1.5 feet in order to locate six off-street parking spaces within the front setback along both streets (total of 12 spaces). 2. The project is exempt from environmental reivew as a Class 5(a) exemption. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings contained in Section ,E" of this report, adopt a motion to deny the request. C. DISCUSSION 1. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use North R-3 Apartments and single family dwellings South C-T & R-3 Commercial and apartments East R-3 Apartments West R-3 Apartments 2. Existing Site Characteristics The subject property is a level, rectangular and vacant 1.5 acre through lot (frontage on two streets) located between Casselman and "D" Streets (500 block) and 200 feet east of Broadway. The property has 251 feet of frontage along both streets and a depth between streets of 262 feet. Both streets are fully improved with curbs, gutters, sidewalks and street paving. Casselman Street has a 60 foot wide right-of-way with a 36 foot traveled way, 6 foot wide parkway and 5 foot sidewalk. "D" Street is a 80 foot wide street with a 40 foot traveled way, 13 foot parkways and 5 foot sidewalks. The property line is located 12 feet back from the face of curb on Casselman Street and 20 feet on "O" Street. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 27, 1983 Page 4 3. Proposed Development The applicant intends to develop the subject property with a two story 45 unit apartment complex consisting of a combination of one .and two bedroom units within six residential structures, each containing either seven or eight units. A total of 65 parking spaces (including the 12 spaces in the front setback) is proposed on-site with another eight spaces provided on the street for a total of 72 spaces. The buildings will be located a minimum of 20 feet from the front property lines. 4. Building Line Map The 20 foot front setback along both streets has been established by the Building Line Map (a specific plan governing front yard setbacks) and takes precedence over the front yard setbacks established by the Municipal Code regardless if the setback is more or less restrictive. The Code requires a 15 foot front yard setback in the R-3 zones. 5. Apartments with Front Yard Parking Within the immediate vicinity, there are nine other apartment projects which have parking located within the front yard setback area and three of these are immediately adjacent and contiguous to the subject property. All of these apartments are 24 years old or older having been constructed no later than 1950. On the south side of "D" Street, opposite the project site, a parking bay within the street right-of-way has been installed. The apartments were all developed prior to the present regulations adopted in 1969. D. ANALYSIS The applicant has stated in his application (attached hereto) that the design of the project is improved by distributing the off-street parking throughout the project rather than to concentrate the parking in one area. Also, by distributing the parking, the parking does not dominate the interior scene and places the parking closer to the units. The applicant states that in order to achieve this design, it is necessary to place a portion of the parking within the front setback. The staff agrees with the applicant this it is best to distribute parking throughout the project. However, we cannot agree that parking must be located within the front setback to accomplish this design. The applicant also states that the granting of this request will provide parity with other developments in the immediate vicinity. As indicated earlier, there are a number of apartments in the area which have parking located within the front setback. However, all of these projects were developed prior to the adoption of the present Code and are classic examples as to why the Code prohibits parking in the front setback. Recent developments in the R-3 zone and within the immediate area of the subject property have not been allowed to park in the front setback. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 27, 1983 Page 5 The design solutions offered by the applicant have merit. However, there is no justification for the granting of the variance on the basis of hardship or to achieve parity with other recent developments. It is therefore the staff's recommendation that the request be denied. E. FINDINGS 1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. Said harship may include practical difficulties in developing 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 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. The subject property is a 1.5 acre level, vacant and rectangular parcel, therfore, no hardship exists with respect to lot size, lot configuration or topography to justify the granting of the request. 2. That 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 not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors. There are other properties in the immediate area which have parking within the front setback. However, they were developed rior to the adoption of the present regulations and are classic examples as to why parking within the front setback is deemed undesirable. Parity is to be achieved by comparing the proposed development with other recent developments under the present regulations. 3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter of public interest. While the proposed development is an improvement over the existing developments, the granting of this request would tend to perpetuate an undesirable condition in area in need of upgrading. 4. That the authorizing of such variance will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. The granting of this request would be contrary to the goals of the Design Review Manual and the General Plan. WPC 0422P VARIANCE APPLICATION FO.~R DEPARTMENT USE ONLY: Application NO. Date Received No. Receipt Oate~ Hearing Section 1. ~(~ NAME(S) OF APPLICANT Appel Development Corporation ADDRESS OR LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED S60Casselman, Chula Vista LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY The Westerly One-half of Lot 4, in theQuarter Section 150, of RANCHO DE LA NATION, in the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of California, accordinR to Map thereof No. 505~ flied in the office of the County racorder of San Diego County, March 13, 1888. EXCEPTING THERFROM~ the Westerly 200.00 feet and the Easterly 170.00 feet. ALSO EXC£CPTING THEREFROM, the Northerly 30.00 feet as granted to the City of Chula Vista, for street purposes~ dated February 91 1942, and recorded in Book 1324, page 111, of Offical Records. APPLICANT'S MAILING ADDRESS 5797 Chesapeake Ct. Suite I~ Sam Die~% CA. 92123 TELEPHONE NO: HOME BUSINESS (619) 565-9837 APPLICANT'S INTEREST IN PROPERTY (Own, Lease, Etc.) Owner ON WHAT DATE DID THE OWNER PURCHASE THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED -- Currently in escrow WHAT DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE PLACED ON THE PROPERTY THAT IN ANY WAY AFFECT THE VARIANCE YOU ARE REQUESTING No THE PROPERTY IS ZONED R-3 IF THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM THE AREA, YARD, OR HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS, NOTE WHICH: ITEM MUNICIPAL CODE RE~4JIRES VARIANCE REQUEST IS FOR Area (if below minimum lot area) N/A Front Yard (property line to building line) N/A Side Yard (state which)(property line to building line) N/A Rear Yard (property line to buildin9 line) ~/^ Height N/A Lot Frontage N/A Sign (height, area, etc.) N/A Other (specify) Municiple Code 19-52.62 150 The tariance request is to allow off- street parking within the existing 20 foot setback. -1- Section 2. Describe in detail what wtll be done on the property if the variance is approved. For example. "the proposed addition will be 5 feet f~om the side property line ...... The proposed variance would allow the applicant to place a total of 12 spaces within the two 20 foot setback ara:as fronting Casselman and D Streets. The parking spaces would be distributed along the proposed driveway entrances and located in pairs. There would be a total of 6 parking s~aces on each street, or 3 sets of two spaces. Section 3. The Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator is required by law to make written findings of fact in accordance with section lg.14.190 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code that al~l of the following conditions generally apply to the property in question. Please answer all questions and explain in detail how your request conforms to the questions. a. Does a hardship peculiar to the property exist- because of its size, shape, location, topography or relationship to surrounding properties - that was not created by any act of the owner? (Hardship does not include personal, family or financial problems, or loss of profit. ) Because of the relationship of this property to surrounding properties the applicant, inorder to enjoy his full rights to development of the property, would have to place larger areas of parking facilities adjacent to surrounding properties. Combined with the adjacent property's existing parking arrangement, this design would perpetuate an existing condition which is permissible, however, considered lc:~s ti,an desirable. b. Is this variance necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zone and in the vicinity of the subject property, or will the applicant be granted a special privilege if this request is approved? How will granting of the variance bring your property to parity (equality) with other properties? Zone Variance Application June 30, 1983 City of Chula Vista Attachment Section 3. b. Continued, property rights to the same extent as those adjacent him. In additon, the variance would allow the City the opportunity to improve upon an existing condition occuring in the neighborhood. That is, the parking facilities, provided by others throughout the neighborhood, consist of a series of designs which tend to back one pa~king facility onto another. The resultant appearance of this past practice is that of a commerical center rather than residential homes. The appicant in this case is seeking the approval of a variance to mit- agate this situation within his development. Such an approval would allow the applicant to provide p~rking spaces in smaller quantities throughout the site. In this fashion, the individual parking spaces can be efficiently incorporated into the landscape plan. Each space would benefit by the greater exposure to the landscaping provided. Inversely, each space would be screened by larger amounts of landscaping, as precieved from inside or outside of the project. Another feature of the proposed design is that it provides the residents of the future development the ability to park their car near their individual front doors. We believe that this is an important design feature which would more closely approximate a single family detached house life style, while the development would provide all of the benefits and ammenities afforded to a multi-family life style. c. Will the approval of this variance affect or be !~armful to adjacent property, er m~terially impair the intent of the Municipal Code or the public interest? We are of the opinion that approval of this variance would in fact be as well. IL .~r ooinion that the Municioal code was ori~inallv written to the code inadventantlv develoeed an interior scene eouallv as undersirable ( See Attachment 2) d. Will the granting of this variance be contrary co the objectives of the General Plan and its various elements? The approval of this variance will not affect the goals or objectives of the General Plan. In factI we are of the opinion that approval of the would in 8eneral support the ~oals and objectives specZfied by the General Plan. I swear under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements contained in this applica- tion are to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correctly represented. S~,u~~.lil~or Agent Kevin Knox, The Fifth Day Section 4. Failure to use variance (Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal Code) Failure to use a variance within one il) year after the effective date thereof shall make said variance null and void. However, the Planning Cormnission or Zoning Administrator may grant an extension of time if requested by the applicant provided no changes have occurred that would affect the original findings which justified the approval. The variance is considered to have been used if the applicant has completed the project or spent substantial money toward construction of the project, but if work stops for 3 months after starting and the one year has passed, said variance becomes null and void. Section 5. TranSfer of variance to future owners (Section 19.14.230 of the Municipal Code) Unless the conditions of approval specify that the variance cannot be transferred, the variance applies to the property and is transferable t~ future owners, provided the variance has not become null and void. The new owner may also request an extension of time. -3- Folm PL-16 Rev. 5/76 Zone Variance Application June 30, 1983 City of Chula Vista Attachment 2 Section 3. c. Continued, as that which it intended to p~event. The resultant is the automobile park- ing facility is very much a part of the lives cf ~hose who live within the structures approved under the existing code. Ir our intent to relieve some of this condition by allotting the parking facilities to become an integral part of the overall design, and thus, creating a pleasent environment both to look at and to live in. ~ MC INTOSH ' , CASSELMAN ST. I SF I I M~I MF "D" Street AUTO I I .L -SI=_ ~* MF IMF MF IMF AU'TO REP. ~ ~ TF ii I I I SF I I I I- I I I TF I ~ r--- rI LqI ri:-~' ,' , ' ' b'r I I II I I I I I I FLOWER ~ I I I ; CASSEL]VIAN STREET STRE VALE CT. I I I ~.' ~ "~ .~.~... · .. _:.. ~ I I I' MC INTOSH ST. I I I O t ' I I ~, , ~e~s ~o. o~ ~ni~ 583 Casselmae Street 3 559 Casselman Street 5 519 Casselman Street 4 590 Casselman Street 9 560 Casselman Street 6 ) F~ 0 0 580 'D' Street 9 I II 552 'O' Street 28 * street parking FLOWER . City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 27, 1983 Page 6 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-83-23; request to expand day-care nursL~y onto 6)u ~our~h Avenue - Louise and Clifford Pe~erson A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicants, owners and operators of the "I" Corner Pre-school and Day-Care Center at 406 "I" Street, are requesting permission to expand their existing facility onto a 6000 sq. ft. parcel located immediately to the south at 610 Fourth Avenue in the R-3 zone. 2. An Initial Study, IS-83-31, of possib)e adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on July 7, 1983. The Environmental Review Coordinator 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 sijnificant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-83-31. 2. Based on findings contained in Sectioq "E" of this report, adopt a motion to approve the request, PCC-83-23, to establish a day-care facility at 610 Fourth Avenue subject to the following conditions: a. The chain line fence and gate along the front shall be replaced with a 3 1/2 foot high wood fence and gate identical to the fence existing at 406 "I" Street. The area between the fence and the sidewalk shall be landscaped similar to 406 "I" Street. b. No vehicles shall be parked within the front 20 feet of the driveway. c. All signs shall be subject to approval by the Director 'of Planning. d. A six-foot high solid wood fence shall be erected along the southerly and westerly property lines except within the front 15 feet. e. The driveway area from the front of the house to the garage shall be separated from the front yard by a fence and shall not be used for play area. f. The grass play area designated to the west of the proposed lO00 sq. ft. day care addition may not be used as a play area unless the applicant can prove to the satisfaction of the City Planning Director that noise generated in the area will not adversely effect the adjacent properties. The City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 27, 1983 Page 7 applicant shall obtain the services of a qualified acoustician to determine the level of noise anticipated and recommended solutions to avoid impacts on the adjacent properties. C. DISCUSSION 1. Adjacent zoning and land use. North R-3 Duplex South R-1 Single family dwelling East R-3 Single family Uwellings West R-1 Duplex 2. Existing site characteristics. The applicants' present facility is located at the southwest corner of Fourth Avenue and "I" Street on an ll,400 sq. ft. (95' x 120') lot. The existing 1800 sq. ft. day-care structure is located on the southwest portion of the lot and nine off-street parking spaces are located in front along "I" Street. There is one driveway on each street frontage. The proposed expansion area is a 6000 sq. ft. (50' x 120') parcel located immediately to the south of the applicants' facility and is developed with an older one-story wood-frame single family dwelling (lO00 sq. ft.) and a one-car detached garage near the southerly property line. The driveway is also located along the southerly property line. Fencing includes a 3-1/2 foot chain-link fence along the front and northerly property lines and a 4 foot high wood fence along the southerly and rear property lines. 3. Proposed use. The applicant wishes to convert the dwelling into a day-care faclity for 20 additional children (57 children total). The hours of operation will be from 6:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday (the same as the existing facility). The garage will be used for storage and additional work space and also contain a washer and dryer. The grounds will be used for play area and the driveway will be a hard surface yard for tricycles. The chain-link fence between properties will be moved slightly to the south and a gate installed between sites. The home itself will have two classrooms, arts and crafts room, library/study, and a baby nursery as well as a restroom. There will be two overlapping work shifts with a total combined staff of up to ll persons (both buildings) There will be no drop off or pick up of children on the proposed expansion area. All of that activity will occur on the present site. Therefore, the gate in front will be closed at all times except for delivery of supplies and occasional employees. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 27, 1983 Page 8 D. ANALYSIS The day-care facility has been operating for approximately ten years. Approval of this request will enable the applicant to expand the level of service without relocation. The structure is of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed increase in the number of children. The proposed change will require a new certificate of occupancy from the Department of Building and Housing. The building will also be required to conform with State and local fire safety regulations as well as the 1982 Uniform Building Code. Letters have been received from two adjoining neighbors (615 Guava Avenue and 618 Fourth Avenue) requesting that a masonry wall be erected along the common property line to reduce the level of noise. While a wall may attenuate the noise better than a fence, the actual dba loss as well as the amount of noise generated by the children is unknown. To properly address the question of whether the area west of the building at 610 Fourth should be used for children's play can only be answered after data is submitted by a qualified acoustician. It is suggested that use of the area for children's play be withheld until such data is submitted to the Planning Director, after which the Director can make a decision. 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. Approval of this request will enable the applicant to increase their level of service in the same location. 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 improvements in the vicinity. All drop off and pick up of children will occur at the present facility, therefore, no traffic hazards will be created at the new project area. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The applicant is required to meet all fire and building regulations prior to occupying the dwelling. 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 General Plan is not affected by the granting of this request. WPC 0403P/OO15Z VT eclaration - negative PROJECT NAME: "I" Corner Preschool and Day Care Center Expansion PROJECT LOCATION: 610 Fourth Avenue PROJECT APPLICANT: Louise L. and Clifford B. Peterson CASE NO: IS-83-31 DATE: July 7, 1983 A. Project Settin9 The project site consists of a 6,000 square foot lot containing one single family dwelling with a detached garage. An existing preschool and day care center is located to the north at 406 "~" Street and single family dwelling units are located to the west, south, and east across Fourth Avenue. There are no known geologic hazards present on or near the site, and no rare or endangered plant or animal species have been identified on or near the site. B. Project Description The project involves the expansion of the existing preschool and day care center located at 406 "I" Street into the single family dwelling located at 610 Fourth Avenue. The children play areas will be expanded to include the front yard, rear yard, and driveway areas of the subject site. A chain link fence will be located at the front of the project site. Interior remodeling of the existing single family dwelling to accommodate up to 20 children is also proposed. The project includes increasing the eligible age of children from preschool age up to 10 years of. age. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans Although the existing preschool and day care center at 406 "I" Street had previously been granted a conditional use permit to operate, any expansion of the facilities will ~equire approval by the Planning Commission through the conditional use permit procedure. The City Fire Marshal indicates that the structures do not qualify for day care of non-ambulatory (crib age) children which will limit the span of age groups proposed with the expansion. D. Identification of Environmental Effects Noise Noise levels occurring due to children playing on the premises are considered nuisance noises which could occur in the rear yard area. Single family homes located to the west and south would be the major receptors of these impacts. These impacts are not anticipated to be city of chula vista planning department environmental review section -2- 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 manmade resources, and there are no geologic hazards present on or near the site. 2. The proposed preschool and day care center expansion is compatible 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 substance or create any significant traffic hazards. F. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista Steve Griffin, Associate Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Ted Monsell, Fire Marshal Tom Dyke, Building Department Duane Bazzel, Assistant Planner 2. Documents EA-72-10, Peterson Preschool IS-83-1, Playhouse Day Care Center IS-83-2, Cottontail Preschool The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. E~IRO~ENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR ~'?C C~C-¢? city of chula vista planning department ~~-,,r~' $ ~.',-..fnA" 12/82) eflvironmental review section EN 6 (Rev. 12/82) TOR Expand Ex/st. Preschool ~?10 Fourth Ave. "I" Street