The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Comm Reports/1983/03/23 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, March 23, 1983 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued) Consideration of revocation of conditional use permit, PCC-83-8, video arcade at 678 'E' Street - Kamiar Simantob 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional use permit PCC-83-17, request to construct a 200-bed convalescent hospital at 500 block Davidson Avenue - Anush Badii/Amalgamated Development Company 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-83-8, request for a reduction in the front, exterior sideyard and rear yard at 500 block Davidson Avenue - Anush Badii/Amalgamated Development Company 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional use permit PCC-83-15, request for the development of a 12-unit senior citizen housing project at 330 "G" Street - Louis Guillemette 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Tentative subdivision map for Robinhood Mall Condos, Chula Vista Tract 83-2, 1665-1667 Brandywine Avenue - Robert E. and Patricia F. Casey 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-83-6, request for a reduction in the sideyard setback at 824 David Drive - Mariano and Joann Ingargiola 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-83-7, request for a reduction in the driveway width in order to serve two proposed panhandle lots at 156 'K' Street - Donna Souza 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of revision to the adopted precise plan standards (PCZ-83-A) governing the development of the property located at 446-450 Fourth Avenue - Dr. Mark Jenkins/William Whitt 9. PUBLIC HEARING: Zoning text amendment, PCA-83-4, consideration of amendment to Chapter 19.60 of Municipal Code prohibiting display of freeway oriented price signs - City initiated DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS To: City Pla~'4ng Commission ~ From: Bud Gray, ~irector of Planning Subject: Staff report on agenda items for Planning Commission Meeting of March 23, 1983 1. PUBLIC HEARING (continued): Consideration to revoke conditional use permit, PCC-83-8 for a video ~ame center at 678 "£" Street - Kamiar Simantob A. BACKGROUND This item was considered by the Planning Commission on February 23, 1983. After openin9 the public hearing and taking testimony, the Commission continued the matter to this meeting to provide the owner of the video game establishment an opportunity to show just cause as to why the conditional use permit should not be revoked. (See attached staff report). B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion to revoke the permit, PC¢-83-8, and instruct the permittee to cease and desist operations and vacate the premises within 30 days (April 22, 1983 - 5:00 p.m.). C. DISCUSSION 1. Previous Meeting At the last Planning Commission meeting, substantial testimony was given concerning the nuisance caused by the video game center to other businesses in the Big Bear Shopping Center and the general public. The staff report indicated that a number of the conditions of the conditional use permit had not been complied with and those that were, required extraordinary action on the part of the City. 2. At the time of this writing, the permittee has still not accomplished the following: a. Applied for a sign permit and building permit for the sign; b. Submitted a site plan for the location of the required bike racks; c. Provided uniformed security; and d. Is still using only one bank of lights. 3. Once a conditional use permit is granted, an applicant has a vested right; therefore, a revocation cannot take place without due process. In this instance, testimony was received at the last Planning Commission meeting noting a number of problems associated with the use. It is the City Attorney's opinion that the applicant should be given the right to cross-examine any witnesses, including staff, at the March 23 hearing. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 23, 1983 Page 2 D. Conclusion Based on the adverse testimony given at the last meeting by adjacent tenants of the shopping center and persons working nearby, and the failure of the applicant to fulfill the conditions of the conditional use permit, the Planning Department has concluded that a revocation of the use permit is necessary to protect the welfare of existing businesses within this center. E. FINDINGS l. The applicant was granted a Conditional Use Permit on October 27, 1982, which contained certain conditions as specified in Resolution No. PCC-83-8 which have not been complied with prior to occupancy of the premises. 2. The applicant has not applied for a sign permit and building permit for the sign on the front of the premises. 3. The applicant has not submitted a site plan to the Director of Planning for the location of the required bicycle racks. 4. The applicant has not provided an adult owner, manager or qualified security guard on the premises at all times of operation. 5. Public testimony before the Planning Commission on February 23, 1983, provided that video game center patrons have caused inconvenience, disruption of business, and a nuisance to the other businesses located in the shopping center and to the general public. 6. Testimony was given that elementary school children have frequented the game center during school hours. 7. Testimony was given that indicated persons had been observed consuming alcoholic beverages on the premises and outside the back door of said video game center. 8. Testimony was given that lights inside the video game center have been turned off to darken the interior. 9. Testimony was given that patrons have been smoking marijuana inside the video game center. 10. Testimony was given that the female manager was not properly supervising the business operation. 11. Testimony was given that a video game center patron broke the adjoining barbershop window. 12. Testimony was given that the noise from the video machines was causing a disturbance to adjoining businesses. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 23, 1983 Page 3 13. Testimony was given that there has been a substantial increase in beer bottles and trash accumulation around the video game center causing a nuisance and possible safety problem to the general public. 14. Testimony was given that the video game center has caused adjacent businesses a loss of patronage. 15. Based on the above findings, the use has been detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public. 16. Therefore, based on the above findings, the conditional use permit is hereby revoked and the applicant shall vacate the premises by April 22, 1983, at 5:00 p.m. WPC 0243P I ! · · I i- ~. , FEASTER -- I ~ I i , ELEMENTA - T-.L I I I Serv. I Restou- Mobile I , . ~...~_ Station I rant. Home I I Sales I Store I ~ . I i i E ST~ I i Car I ~ ' ' ~Rest I Hotel ' ' ' Rest/B~r ~R~ __J ~__. ,Off, ce . ~ ~. Bowling ~ ~- - .2 -- Motel Mo~l Motel I I MF ~ ~ ~ ' MF ' I' I , fl I I I I City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 23, 1983 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration to revoke conditional use permit~ PCC-83-8, for a video game center at 678 "E" Street - Kamiar Simantob A. BACKGROUND 1. In October, 1982, the Planning Commission granted a Conditional Use Permit to Mr. Kamiar Simantob for a video game center within the Big Bear Shopping Center at 678 "E" Street. The permit was subject to seven conditions, one of which provided that; "Any reported disturbance or problems regarding this center shall cause the Conditional Use Permit to be reviewed by the Planning Commission for possible revocation." 2. The Planning Department has received complaints from other tenants within the Shopping Center indicating that since the opening of the video game center there have been problems relating to noise, litter, offensive language, and bicycles lying on the pedestrian walk. A letter has also been received from the Principal of Feaster Elementary School (Frances L. Read) located across "E' Street which states that the parents of the school children believe the center has a negative influence on the children (see attached letter). These complaints as well as noncompliance of conditions of approval have prompted the Planning Department to set this matter for Planning Commission consideration. B. RECOMMENDATION Continue the public hearing to March 25, 1983, for the applicant to show cause why the Conditional Use Permit should not be revoked. C. ~ISCUSSION 1. Game Center A business license was issued to the applicant in November, 1982, which made a notation of the conditions of approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Since then, the Planning Department has had contact with the applicant, receiving only partial compliance with the conditions of the Permit and other provisions of the Code. A letter was sent to the applicant on December 22, 1982, requesting compliance of various conditions (see attached letter). City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 23, 1983 2. Conditions and Regulations Besides meeting the conditions of approval for the Conditional Use Permit, the applicant must also satisfy the requirements of the Code on sign permits and fire regulations for the particular type of occupancy. The site was visited on several occasions to determine if they had complied. As of this writing, the applicant has not complied with the following: a. Fire regulations - The applicant has not complied with all of the fire regulations and the Fire Marshal has turned the matter over to the City Attorney for disposition. b. Sign regulations - The applicant has not filed for a sign permit. An illegal sign has been placed in an existing sign cabinet. The sign does not extend across the full length of the cabinet leaving a portion of the interior of the cabinet exposed. c. Site plan - The applicant has not fi)ed a site plan denoting the location of the bike racks (for at least ten bicycles). However, the applicant has obtained two bike racks which will accommodate six bicycles. The racks are located at the rear entrance into the center insteadofnear the front entrance as conditioned by the Commission. d. Supervision - The applicant presently has two females (approximately 18 and 19 years old) managing the center. At one time, a person under 18 years of age was managing the center contrary to the conditions of approval. 3. Complaints Besides the concerns listed earlier in this report, the adjacent tenants have indicated the center has been operating at night without interior lighting. A field investigation and conversation with one of the managers did indicate that very little lighting (a bank of lights at the rear of the center) is provided because it caused a glare on the video games making it difficult to see the images on the screens. Other complaints filed with the City include an increase in disturbances requiring police action. However, this was not substantiated by the Police Department. 4. Lease Agreement Mr. Phil Ward of Big Bear Markets indicated that the applicant's five-year lease agreement included a clause calling for the applicant to provide uniformed security in the event any problems were perceived to arise from the center. In December, 1982, the applicant was told to provide such security within a time frame of 90 to 120 days. To date the applicant has not yet provided the security. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 23, 1983 D. ANALYSIS Essentially the Planning Department has no desire to recommend that the applicant's Conditional Use Permit be revoked by the Planning Commission and would prefer that the applicant comply with the conditions of approval and manage the establishment in such a manner as to be able to coexist with the other uses in the Shopping Center. However, it appears that the applicant has not made a concerted effort to comply with the regulations of the Code and conditions of approval. While some progress has been made, it has been very slow and has required extraordinary action on the part of the City. In addition, the applicant has knowingly employed a person under the age requirement for a brief period of time contrary to the conditions of approval. If activities extend beyond the building confines, one person is not capable of controlling adverse behavior on the part of the patrons without additional support from a security guard. Therefore, businesses which create specific problems of this type should be required to retain a guard. E. CONCLUSION The Planning Department has not been able to gather sufficient information to make a specific recommendation to revoke the Conditional Use Permit. However, there are strong indications that unless the applicant takes a different posture in complying with the conditions of approval and regulations of the Code and complies within a reasonable length of time, the Permit should be revoked. In addition, if there is sufficient testimony given at the meeting against the center which can be supported, then the Commission should also revoke the permit. AL:vt WPC 0205P MAE L. FEASTER SCHOOL 670 Flower Street Chula Vista, California 92010 January 20, 1983 Director of Planning Planning Commission 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Dear Mr. Gray: It has come to my attention that the Video Parlor in the Big Bear complex on E Street near Jefferson Avenue has been attracting children from Feaster School. The parlor is a negative influence according to parents. They have said that children spend their lunch money and fail to return home as requested. The people at the Video Parlor have not cooperated with no admittance to youngsters when the parents have objected to the children going. Some children have free games by doing "favors" at the parlor. It is hoped that the Video Parlor can be removed from the proximity of Feaster School. Sincerely, FRANCES L. READ Principal FLR: oral R E C E I V E O JAN 25 1983 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CHULA VISTA, CALI23RNIA The City of Chula Vista Platmi.$ Departme. t 575-91o~ December 22, 1982 Mr. Kamiar Simantob 520 "E" Street, Suite 204 San Diego, CA 92101 Dear Mr. Simantob: On October 28, 1982 you were requested by letter to file a plan with the City showing the location of proposed bicycle racks to be installed for a video arcade game center at 678 "E" Street in Chula Vista. You then approached the Planning Department a short time later and asked that you be allowed to open your business on the premise that you would be installing the bike racks immediately. An inspection of the site on December 17, 1982 has revealed that the bike racks have not been installed. Unless a plan is submitted and approved ahd the bike racks installed within lO days of the receipt of this letter, we will have no choice but to return to the Planning Commission and ask for rev.ocation of your license. In addition, two other items must be attended to: 1. In visiting the site it has come to our attention that an adult owner or manager is not present on the premises at all times as required by condition 6 in the resolution of approval. 2. You have installed a business sign on the front of the property without the benefit of a permit from the Planning Department. You are requested to comply with condition No. 6 and secure a sign permit from the Planning Department immediately. Very truly yours, Ken Lee Principal Planner KL:hm cc: City Attorney Zoning Enforcement Officer Jack Dardashti, HDN Corporation, 18555 Ventura Blvd., Tarzana, CA 91356 276 Fourth ,~ue Cimb ~s~a. Califor.ia 92CnO _~_~ CON['ITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PCC-83-8 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use permit was filed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on September 30, 1982 by Kamiar Simantob, and WHEREAS, said application requested permission to establish a video arcade at 678 "E" Street within the Big Bear shopping center in the C-T zone, and WHEREAS, the Planning Comission set the time and place for a hearing on said application and notice of said hearing was given by the mailing of a letter to property owners within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to the hearing, and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p.m., October 27, 1982 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Comission and said hearing was thereafter closed, and WHEREAS, the Commission found that in accordance with the Negative Declar- ation issued on IS-83-9, this project will have no significant adverse env!ren- mental impact and adopted the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY PLANNING CO~qISSION finds as follows: a. 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 is located within a major shopping center and there are no other video game centers in the immediate vicinity, therefore, the use will offer a commercial recreational service where none presently exists. b. 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. The requirement of adult supervision will deter inappropriate behavior which could affect adjacent uses. c. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The proposed use is located in an existing commercial center which meets the requirements of the code. d. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. The General Plan designates this area as a con~nercial district in which this use would be most compatible with other allowable uses. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission grants a condi- tional use permit to Kamiar Simantob to establish a video arcade at 678 "E" Street, subject to the following conditions: 1. A bicycle rack for at least l0 bicycles shall be provided within close proximity to the entrance of the proposed use, subject to site plan approval by the Planning Director. 2. Any reported disturbance or problems regarding this center shall cause the conditional use permit to be reviewed by the Planning Commission for possible revocation. 3. No alcoholic beverages shall be permitted on the premises. 4. No school children under 18 years of age shall be allowed on the premises during the normal school hours. 5. The restroom shall be available for customer use at all times during business hours. 6. An adult owner, manager or qualified security guard shall be present on the premises at all times of operation. 7. The two pool tables shall be removed from the proposed floor plan due to the narrow width of the store. A revised floor plan shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. This conditional use permit shall become void and ineffective if the same is not utilized within one year from the date of this resolution in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal Code. PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California this 27th day of October, 1982 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, Shipe, Green, R. Johnson, G. Johnson and Cannon NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner O'Neill Chairman ATTEST: ? Secretary Chula Vista Planning ~ommission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 23, 1983 Page 4 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-83-17; request to establish a 200-bed convalescent hospital in the 500 block of Davidson Street - Anush Badii/Amalgamated Development Co. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-83-8. request for a reduction in required setbacks - Anush ~adil/Amal~amated Development Co. 1. BACKGROUND a. The applicant is requesting permission to establish a 200-bed convalescent hospital on 1.65 acres located on the south side of Davidson Street (500 block) between Ash and Beech Avenues in the R-3 zone. The applicant is also requesting a reduction in required setback along Ash and Beech Avenues from 20 feet to 15 feet, as well as a reduction in the rear yard setback (southerly property line) from 20 feet to 5 feet. The two requests have been combined in this report; however, separate action will be required on each application. b. An Initial Study, IS-83-20, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on March 10, 1983. The Environmental Review Coordinator concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended that the Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted. 2. RECOMMENDATION a. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-83-20. b. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion to approve the request, PCC-83-17, to establish a 200-bed convalescent hospital on Davidson Street between Ash and Beech Avenues subject to the following conditions: '- (1) The project shall be subject to site plan and architectural approval by the Design Review Committee. (2) A survey of all existing trees having a trunk diameter of 6 inches or more shall be submitted together with landscaping and irrigation plans for the project. c. Based on the findings contained in Section "F" of this report, adopt a motion to approve the reduction in the required 20 foot setback along Ash and Beech Avenues to 15 feet and a reduction in the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 15 feet. Chula Vista Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 23, 1983 Page 5 3. DISCUSSION a. Adjacent zoning and land use. North R-1 single family dwellings South R-3 intermediate care facility (Collingwood Manor) East R-3 single family dwellings, day nursery; apartments West R-3 apartments (four-plexes) b. Existing site characteristics. The project site consists of lO level parcels with a combined area of 1.65 acres. Three of the parcels are vacant (along Beech Avenue) and seven are developed with single family dwellings (four along Davidson Street and three along Ash Avenue). All of the adjoining streets have a right-of-way width of 60 feet with a curb-to-curb section of 40 feet and a five foot monolithic sidewalk. The property lines are located five feet from the inside edge of the sidewalk. c. Proposed use. (1) The proposed project is a two-story (with a partial basement) 200~bed convalescent hospital located on the southerly area of the site with the parking area (72 spaces; 67 required) located in front (north) of the building. Part of the second floor projects over a portion of the parking area. Access to the parking is provided by a two-way driveway on both Ash and Beech Avenues. No access is proposed from Davidson Street. The building will be located 15 feet from the property lines on Ash and Beech Avenues and five feet from the southerly property line. The second story projecting in to the parking area will be located 72 feet from Davidson Street with the remainder of the building setting back 146 feet. (2) There will be 28 rooms on the first floor which will have a total of 53 beds (25 two-bed rooms and 3 one-bed rooms). The second floor will have 54 rooms and 145 beds (129 three-bed rooms, 14 two-bed rooms and 4 one-bed rooms). Each room will have separate toilet facilities and there will be common shower areas on each floor. Each floor will have dining/recreation areas, offices and nurses stations. An interior courtyard in provided, a portion of which is open to the sky. The basement is used for storage, and mechanical equipment. It also contains a therapy room and laundry area. A loading ramp leading down to the basement is located at the southwest corner of the lot. (3) The architecture of the building is contemporary in design and rectangular is shape appearing to be very institutional. It will have a stucco exterior and some offsets on the exterior elevations. Chula Vista Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of Mai-ch 23, 1983 Page 6 d. Setbacks. The setbacks for convalescent hospital structures are established by Section 19.58.110 of the Municipal Code and take precedence over the setbacks of the Building Line Map and Zoning Ordinance. The structures must observe a 20 foot setback from all property lines regardless of the setback regulations of the underlying zone and the Building Line Map, if in effect. In this case, the Building Line Map as well as the regulations of the R-3 zone have established a 15 foot setback along each street. The R-3 zone requires a 15 foot rear yard setback. 4. ANALYSIS a. Certificate of need. The applicant has applied for a certificate of need from the State of California. Part of the evaluation process of the certificate is a review and a determination as to whether the project meets the requirements for this type of facility. As of this writing, the State has not completed its review. While not a factor in the City's review of the project, the need for such facilities is on a regional basis (San Diego County). Because of the broad base in determining need, there may be a need in the South Bay. However, the facility would not be allowed because of other facilities located elsewhere in the County. b. Type of facility. To qualify as a convalescent hospital, the facility must have certified nursing care. Anything less would cause it to be classified as a care facility. Convalescent hospitals are for the purpose of providing care for those persons who no longer need the full services of a hospital but still require some professional attention. They are designed to meet a price range significantly lower than that of a regular hospital because of the prolonged periods of tenancy by the residents. c. Locational criteria. The Code requires that these facilities be located on a major or collector street. In this instance, the proposed facility does not front on either type of street. However, because it is contiguous to the intermediate care facility (Collingwood Manor) fronting on "F" Street which is a collector street, it can be considered as an extension or accessory to that use and technically qualifies. In addition, 72 parking spaces are being provided for the hospital whereas if the 1.65 acres were developed as R-3 with 48 2-bedroom apartment units, 80 on-site parking spaces would be required. Chula Vista Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 23, 1983 Page 7 d. Setbacks (1) The subject property is zoned R-3 which has a height limitation of 35 feet or three-and-a-half stories. The proposed facility is only two stories in height, which is less than the maximum number of stories, and a reduction in the front setback should not adversely impact the adjoining uses. Because the property line is located five feet in back of walk, there will be a minimum of 20 feet of landscaping between the sidewalk and the building if the variance is approved. (2) There is some concern that the loading area as designed would result in service vehicles and trucks backing out onto the street because there is no turnaround provided on site. For this reason, it is being recommended that the loading access be extended across the entire width of the lot to eliminate this potential traffic hazard. Since the access need not be two-way, a width of 15 feet is adequate. Therefore, it is recommended that the reduction in the rear yard be approved for a 15 foot setback instead of five feet. 5. FINDINGS (Conditional Use Permit) a. 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 coBunity. The proposed use is located contiguous to an existing care facility. Approval of this request will expand the type and level of service in this area. b. 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. The proposed structure is two stories in height and of a similar mass as an apartment structure. Thus, the facility should not adversely affect the adjoining uses. c. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The proposed use exceeds the minimum parking requirements of the City and the facility is subject to State regulations governing construction (seismic) and resident needs. d. 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 recognizes the need for this type of facility within the City. Chula Vista Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 23, 1983 Page 8 6. FINDINGS (Variance) a. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. Said hardship 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 proposed facility is based on its ability to provide skilled nursing care at a reasonable cost. It becomes essential that the site be used to its greatest potential. To be required adherence to the setback regulations (based partly on visual impact) would cause a reduction in the number of beds in the facility and a corresponding increase in cost per patient. b. 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. The adjoining care facility immediately to the south has setbacks of less than 20 feet along both streets, Ash and Beech Avenue. Approval of this request will allow the applicant to observe the same setbacks. c. 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 or the public interest. The proposed facility is only two stories in height and of a similar mass as apartments which could be constructed on the site. Therefore, the adjacent properties should not be adversely affected. d. 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 General Plan is not affected. WPC 0249P/OO15Z SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SI:' SF SF SF 8F SF SF C{dlingwood Manor IHmpJtal) F Davidson Street 240' -~.~-~__, i I : i : : . , ,.~m~'° ~iService: Ramp Down _z_Service __ 240' ° /j/ KURTH ASSOCIATES / ARCHITECTS negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Chula Vista Convalescent Hospital PROJECT LOCATION: Between Ash Avenue and Beech Avenue, south of Davidson Street PROJECT APPLICANT: Anush Badii/Amalgamated Development Company 225 Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101 CASE NO. IS-83-20 DATE: March ll, 1983 A. Project Setting The project site consists of a 1.65 acres of relatively flat property located between Ash Avenue and Beech Avenue, and south of Davidson Street. A total of seven single-family dwellings exist on the project site in addition to a paved area previously utilized for parking for the adjacent land use. Single-family dwellings are located across Davidson Street to the north, Ash Avenue to the west, and Beech Avenue to the east. A convalescent facility presently exists to the south. There are no significant plant nor animal species located on the urbanized site and there are no known geological hazards known to exist in the project vicinity. B. Project Description The proposed project consists of the construction of a 75,000 square foot, 200-bed, two-story convalescent hospital with parking for a total of 72 cars. Access to the parking areas would be from Ash Avenue and Beech Avenue. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans Section 19.58.110 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code requires convalescent hospitals to maintain a 20-foot front and rear setback, in addition to frontage on a major or collector road. The proposed project involves a reduction of the front setback to 15 feet and the rear seback to zero. The project is also located on a residential street. The Planning Commission will be required to approve the project including any modification of Code requirements through a conditional use permit. D. Identification of Environmental Effects 1. Transportation Impacts on adjoining streets are not anticipated to be significant although the implementation of this project and future developments will increase the eventual need for the City to install a left-turn pocket on Broadway at Davidson Street, and a two-way left-turn lane on "E" Street at Ash Avenue and Beech Avenue. city of chula vista planning department environmental review section IS-83-20 -2- 2. Social Since the removal of seven living units will be necessary to construct the proposed project, a total of approximately 24 residents will be displaced. In view of the beneficial impact of the convalescent hospital, the removal of this small number of residents is not considered a significant environmental issue. E. Findings of Insignificant Impact 1. The project site is void of any significant natural or man-made resource. No known geologic hazards are present on the site, and proper engineering methods will ensure stable construction. 2. The proposed convalescent hospital is consistent with the General Plan and associated elements, and will not achieve short-term to the disadvantages of long-term environmental goals. 3. There are no impacts anticipated to occur which could interact to create a substantial cumulative effect on the environment. 4. Vehicle traffic increases, resulting from the proposed project, are not considered significant and there are no hazards to human beings anticipated. F. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista Steve Griffin, Associate Planner Duane Bazzel, Assistant Planner Tom Dyke, Building Department Ten Monsell, Fire Marshal Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Applicant's agent Kurth Associates/Architects 2. Documents Chula Vista Municipal Code The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findinQs of no significant impact are on file and available for public hearing at the-Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. E'~iVIROHM~HTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR city of chula vista planning department environmental review section March 18, 1983 To: Members of the Planning Commission From: Bud Gray, Director of Planning /~ / Subject: Conditional Use Permit, PCC-83-15, Senior Housing Project It has come to my attention that the City Council has adopted a policy (attached hereto) wherein Senior Housing Projects may only be rental projects and cannot be condominiums. Therefore, the conditions of approval recommended on PCC-83-15 regarding ownership criteria should be deleted. In addition, the Rental Income Levels on page l0 should be changed from $20,160 and $23,040 to $13,440 and $15,360 respectively. BG:rms The City of Chub Vista SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS POLICY Adopted by City Council Resolution No. 10763 on February 2, lg82 OBJECTIVE To provide rental tenancy standards which will assure that housing units developed under a conditional use permit as part of a Senior Housing Development are established and maintained for the exclusive use of low or moderate income senior residents. STANDARDS 1. Renter Age. To rent a Senior Housing Development unit, the renter/ occupant must be 60 years of age or older. 2. Renter household income. Tenant income shall be equal to or less than 80% of the current HUD-published SMA (area) median income. Calculated income will include reasonable yield from liquid assets. The median income will be updated annually. 3. Renter income certification. Income eligibility shall be determined for all renters by t~e County Housing Authority or a similar agency. The unit owner will request referrals from the County Housing Authortty's Section 8 Existing waiting list. If that list is insufficient, the owner will pay income determination fees for applicants not on the Housing Authority's waiting list. 4. Unit rental rate. The rental price shall not exceed the current published Section B Existing program fair market rents for unit size, less HUD- published utility allowances for specific utility configurations. Rental rates may be increased with annually published increases in Section 8 Existing fair market rents. 5. Continuation of affordability. A deed restriction shall bind the owner and any successors to maintaining maximum rents at or below the published Section 8 fair market rents for a period of 25 years. Additionally, conversion of the project to condominiums would be prohibited during that period. City Planning Commis. n Agenda Items for Meeting of March 23, 1983 Page 9 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-83-151 request to d~v~lop a )2-unit senior citizen housing project at 330 G Street - Louis Guillemette A. BACKGROUND 1. This item involves a request to develop a 12-unit senior citizen housing project at 330 ""G Street in the R-3 zone. 2. An Initial Study, IS-81-50, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Committee on June 25, 1981. The Environmental Review Committee concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended that the Conditioned Negative Declaration be adopted. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Conditioned Negative Declaration issued on IS-81-50. 2. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the request, PCC-83-15, to develop a 12-unit senior housing project at 330 "G" Street subject to the following conditions: a. The developer shall not oppose the formation of any assessment district formed for the purpose of providing adequate storm drainage facilities to serve the proposed area. b. On-site fire protection such as a dry standpipe shall be provided. The location to be determined by the Fire Marshal. c. The project shall be subject to the following occupancy requirements: (1) Age The head of household shall be 60 years of age or older to qualify for purchase, rental, or lease of any unit. (2) Income Levels Ownership: Purchaser income shall be equal to or less than 120% of the current HUD-published SMSA median income. Calculated income will include reasonable yield from liquid assets. The median income will be updated annually. The current qualifying income is $20,160 City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 23, 1983 Page 10 per year for a one-person household and $23,040 per year for a two-person household. Rental: Tenant income shall be equal to or less than 80% of current HUD-published SMSA median income. Calculated income will include reasonable yield from liquid assets. The median income will be updated annually. The current qualifying income is $20,160 per year for a one-person household and $23,040 per year for a two-person household. (3) Income Certification The City will contract with the Housing Authority or similar agency for income determination services. Ownership: At initial sale, project developer will pay income determination fee. At resale, unit owner will pay income determination fee. Rental: Owner will request referrals from Housing Authority's Section 8 Existing waiting list. If insufficient, owner will pay income determination fee for applicants not on Housing Authority waiting list. (4) Unit Pricing Ownership: Maximum sales price shall be 2.77 times the qualifying income of a one-person household for a studio or one-bedroom unit. The maximum sales price for a two-bedroom unit shall be 2.77 times the qualifying income of a two-person household. This factor assumes the normal underwriting standard of mortgage price at 2.5 times annual income and assumes a 10% down payment. Maximum sales price would currently be $55,843. Rental: Rental price shall not exceed the current published Section 8 Existing program fair market rents for unit size, less HUD-published utility allowances for specific utility configurations. Rental rates may be increased with annually published increases in Section 8 Existing fair market rents. Note: The current maximum allowable rent would be $327 a month less a utility allowance ranging from $21 to $37 a month. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 23, lg83 Page {5) Continuation of Affordabilit~ Ownership: Grant deed restrictions shall give the City first right to purchase the resale units, which the City will transfer to an income-qualified buyer. The restrictions shall limit the seller's equity gain to the percentage of increase in the SMSA median income plus the current value of improvements. Resale is limited to income eligible households. Additionally, renting, leasing, or assigning the rights to the property shall be prohibited without approval of the City. Resale controls shall be in effect for a period of 25 years. Rental: A deed restriction binding the owner and any successors to maintaining maximum rents at or below the published Section 8 Fair Market Rents for a period of 25 years shall be imposed. Additionally, conversion of the project to condominiums during the 25 year period is prohibited. {6) Future Adjustments Any adjustment in the criteria listed in paragraphs 1-5 shall be the responsibility of the City's Housing Coordinator. Such adjustments shall be made only to reflect changes in HUD regulations or the availability of new financing mechanism. d. The project shall be subject to Design Review Committee approval prior to consideration of this CUP by the City Council. C. DISCUSSION 1. Adjacent zoning and land use. North R-3 Apartments South R-3 Apartments & parking for Pacific Telephone East R-3 Apartments (10 units) West R-3 Apartments (15 units) & single family dwelling 2. Existing site characteristics. The project site is a 14,500 sq. ft. (50' x 290') level parcel located on the south side of "G" Street approximately 320 feet west of Third Avenue. The property is developed with an older single family dwelling. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 23, 1983 Page 12 3. Proposed development. a. The applicant proposes to construct a two-story senior citizen housing project as follows: 1. Units: 12 one-bedroom; size: 704 s.f. to 757 s.f. 2. Private Open Space: Patio or balcony 64 s.f. to 144 s.f. 3. Parking: 12 one car garages (no open parking spaces) Ratio: 1 parking space per unit 4. Access: One 18 foot wide driveway located on the west side of the units 5. Other amenities: Laundry room and recreation room (lst floor), 500 s.f. + open patio area, and shuffleboard court in rear yard. 6. Total Open Space: 2600+ s.f. 7. Setbacks: Front - 15; Sides - 5; Rear - 10' b. There will be 5 units on the ground floor, one in front and four at the rear with the garages, laundry room and recreation room in between. There will be 7 units on the second floor. There will be 3 stairways, one in front and two at the rear. c. The architecture is of contemporary design with a stucco and wood exterior and a composition shake shingle pitched roof. The garage doors will be wood as will the patio and balcony fencing or railings. 4. Deviations from the Code. The applicant has requested certain deviations from the requirements of the R-3 zone. The deviations are reflected in the following table: Regulation Code Proposed Variation a. Density 9 units 12 units 3 units more (27 ~U's/ac) (33 DU's/ac.) b. Parking 18 spaces 12 spaces 6 spaces less c. Total Open 4800 sq. ft. 2600 sq. ft. 1200 sq. ft. less Space d. Setback (rear) 15 feet l0 feet 5 feet less City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 23, 1983 Page 13 5. Similar establishments The City has approved two other senior citizen housing projects. One is proposed at the northwest corner of Fifth Avenue and Parkway (48 units) and the other is proposed at 432 "F" Street (59 units). Each of these proposal requested relief from the Code requirements regarding density, setbacks and parking which were granted by the City. Neither project has started construction. D. ANALYSIS 1. The proposed project is located in an area close to shopping and public transportation as well as other facilities such as churches, parks, public library and other public and quasi-public uses. 2. The parking ratio of one space per unit is more than the other two approved projects which have parking ratios of 0.43 spaces per unit and 0.83 spaces per unit. The major difference is that all of the parking is located in garages whereas the others had open parking. City's Traffic Engineer has expressed some concern in providing car parking which virtually eliminates on site guest parking. However, the garages provide better security for the residents than open parking. The frontage of the property would allow one off-site parking space at the curb. The project is located in an older R-3 area where many existing apartment projects do not meet the present parking requirement resulting in a demand for parking on the street. The option appears to be one of deleting a unit and several garages in favor of providing 3 or 4 on-site guest spaces. The Planning Department has concluded that providing the (12) units with security parking offsets the concerns for guest parking in a small senior project. 3. There are other projects in the immediate area as well as other approved senior projects which have a similar or higher density than the 33 units per acres of the proposed project. Therefore the density is keeping with the area. 4. The Planning Department has been reviewing the rear yard setback of the R-3 zone and will be submitting an amendment to the Code which would allow the reduction of the rear yard to l0 feet when abutting another rear yard in the R-3 zone. The proposed rear yard setback is in keeping with this anticipated change. In addition, the proposed setback is equal to the setback of the existing two story apartment building located directly to the east. 5. The open space requirements of the Code is based on individual need and visual relief. In this case the applicant has provided private open space in excess of the Code requirements but does not meet the overall total. Because the lot is very narrow (50 feet) the only effective landscaping from a visual standpoint is the front setback. The interior landscaping will not provide much visual relief but will help soften the impact of the driveway. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 23, 1983 Page 14 6. Conditions of approval regarding age, income and unit price have been recommended which are idential to the senior citizen housing project located at Fifth Avenue and Park Way. While the conditions include the sale of the units as condominiums, the project is intended to be for rental housing. E. CONCLUSION The City has tried to encourage the development of similar privately financed senior projects in appropriate locations. The close proximity of this project to downtown Chula Vista, an existing market, transportation on Third Avenue, and Memorial Park makes this a very ideal location for senior housing, providing a limited increase in density for small scattered sites throughout the City will not overburden existing facilities or substantially aggrevate parking problems. F. 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 development at this location will provide affordable senior housing in an area with transportation, shopping, and churches in fairly close proximity, thereby contributing to the well being of this segment of the community. 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. The parking ratio of one space per unit exceeds the accepted criteria for senior housing projects. The density is similar to other developments in the vicinity, therefore the project should not adversely affect the adjoining properties. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The use is restricted to low and moderate income seniors and is conditioned upon compliance with City requirements. The Code provides for deviations from the basic requirements of the underlying zone which such deviation is approved by the Planning Commission and City Council and will allow the development of low-moderate income senior housing. 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. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 23, 1983 Page 15 The use will not adversely affect the City's General Plan which advocates residential land use for this area and recognizes the need to provide housing for low and moderate income senior citizens. WPC 0242P/OO15Z I "~vu~~G~o~~o~ I_ -'I ~ I I ' - !~ I-- I I --, I PARK WAY !i I ! __. -- I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I ~ I I I Sho I ' I I , II ' ~ I I Il I i ~ ~ i __. ~_~__~ , , ~. ~:'" ,~/2_~ __. [ SE Voc~c SF SF MF SF ~ ~ ~b ~SFSF[~SF:SF MFTF~ MF ~ ~ ~' ~ I ~ ~ I I I I ~ VaCl ~ IMF~SF SF ,MF SF ~ I ~ I ffFI 3~ ~ . ~ MF MF IMF ~ I,: I --- O I I ~ ~ I I ISFI I ---.-__ ~1: ,o~.l --- ~ ~ ._~_~___~ , ~ .... ~_ ~ ~ SF SF MF SF SF SF SF M~ - ~ ~ I ~ I ~--. ~ '1 ,,m;;~, --- . VANCE S~ L , I ~ I ~__ r I ~ I I I SF SF SF SF SF SF'SF SF ~l~ I I [ ~ci[[Co~s Tel~om ---- ~ISFIIMF ISFISF MF I I iMF]~',~' I I I I I ~ ,_ _ I I ~ ii H~lth ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CluU I I I I I I I I I II I I " .... j ~ I ~ I I ~ ~ I ~I ~ ~ ~ --..... _,_,, _,,, ,,' ,,' ,, ,,, ,,' ,,,,,,", ...... ____ _- ~ I I I i I i i I F ...... I I I I ~ I I I L ..... I I I I ~ I I I I I I I ~ ~ ~ , I PCC-83-15 , · I 12 Unit Senior Citizen '~slng [ ~50 "G" St~et ~s~ ~c." ~'. ~ '~s'~ c~, . M. AP r3OOK, ~ F,¥&E 41 RECEIVED F'LO0~ PLABt UhltT' NDe, 8 ~ 9 FLO0~ RL~N UNJ'J~ 3 I ! FLDO r;,.PLAN UNIT FLOQI~ PL~,N UNIT ~, ~! , ADDENDUM TO NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-81-50 FINDINGS REGARDING THE ADEQUACY OF CONDITIONED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-81-50 A. BACKGROUND The Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista provide that the Environmental Review Coordinator shall review any significant project revisions to assure that there will be no potential for significant environmental impacts which have not been previously evaluated in a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report. If the ERC finds that a proposed project is essentially the same in terms of impact or circumstances under which the project is to be undertaken, the ERC may recommend that a previously prepared ND/IS or EIR be utilized as the environmental document for the project. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project applicant proposes to revise a proposed 8-unit condominium project located at 330 'G' Street to a 12-unit senior citizens residential development. There would be an increase in density and a reduction in the number of onsite parking spaces from 15 to 12. All parking spaces in the revised project are to be located in garages with residential units above them. The provision of senior citizens housing with its increase in density and reduction in parking does require the approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission and City Council. C. ANALYSIS 1. Soils Expansive soils have been found to be present in the project area and a soils report was previously required of the project. There are no changes in the project that would change this requirement or further exacerbate the expansive soils problem. 2. Drainage Either development proposal would result in a minor increase in drainage. The difference in runoff between the two projects would be indistinguishable. As was previously noted there is a potential for impact on downstream storm drain facilities due to cumulative development within this drainage basin. 3. Parks As was noted in the previously prepared Negative Declaration, the park area in this subject park district is currently insufficient, however, the population increase generated by either project would not result in a significant impact on the ability to provide park and recreational services. The project, as currently proposed, would result in fewer people per dwelling unit and, therefore, the need for additional park acreage would either be the same or less. 4. Schools The previous project would have had a minor impact on the provision of educational facilities. However, with the senior citizens project now proposed, no impact to the educational systems is anticipated. D. CO~ICLUSION Based on the above discussion, I hereby find that the proposed senior citizens housing project is essentially the same in terms of environmental impact or circumstances under which is being undertaken and recommend that the Design Review Committee, Planning Commission and City Council certify Negative Declaration IS-81-50 prior to taking action on the project, subject to the mitigation measures specified in the Negative Declaration with the exception of measures #3 and #4, relative to the assurance of adequate educational facilities and payment of in-lieu park fees. DOUGL,~S~'D. REID ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR Date March 11, 1983 CONDIr NED negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Guillemette Condominiums PROJECT LOCATION: 330 G Street PROJECT APPLICANT: Louis Guillemette 318 G St., Apt. 5 Chula Vista, Ca 92010 CASE NO: IS-81-50 DATE: June 25, 1981 A. Project Setting The project'involves approximately 0.33 acres of property which presently contains one single family dwelling at 330 G St. Adjacent land uses consist of multiple family dwellin~ to the west and east, a duplex and commercial parking lot to the south, and multiple family dwellings across G St. to the north. The project site is void of any significant wildlife and there are no significant natural or man-made resources present. Expansive soils may be present on the site and there are no known geologic hazards within the project vicinity. B. Project Description The applicant proposes to construct 8 condominium units contained in one two-story structure. Fifteen parking spaces are proposed in addition to appropriate landscaping and private open space. C. Compatibility with zoning and plans The proposed project is zoned R-3 (Multiple family) and would permit a maximum of 9 dwelling units. The project is compatible with the General Plan and all associated elements. D. Identification of environmental effects 1. Soils The City Engineering Dept. has indicated that expansive soils are present in the project area, therefore a soils report should be prepared and recommendations incorporated into the project to ensure stable construction. city of chula vista planning department environmental review section IS-81-50 2 2. Drainage The increase in the amount of surface runoff which empties into existing storm drain systems resulting from this project will be insignificant. It should be noted that future cumulative development within this drainage basin will warrant increasing the capacity of existing downstream storm drain facilities. 3. Parks The existing park acreage in Park Dist. No. 3 is 8 6 acres, and the current requirement for this district is 22.4 acres. The proposed project will generate the need for .03 acres of parkland which can be satisfied by payment of in-lieu park fees which will be used for the acquisition and development of additional park acreage. 4. Schools The local elementary and junior high schools serving the project area are currently approaching capacity enrollment. This project, combined with proposed projects in the same vicinity will serve to increase enrollment to maximum capacity levels. The developer shall comply with public facilities policies and ensure adequate classroom space for new students. E. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects 1. The developer shall not oppose the formation of any assessment district formed for the purpose of providing adequate storm drainage facilities to serve the project area. (The following measures are standard development regulations and are advisory only) 2. A soils report shall be prepared and all recommendation are to be incorporated into the project. 3. The developer shall provide the city with written assurance from the school districts that adequate educational facilities are available for all new students. IS-81-50 3 4. Park acquisition and development fees shall be paid in-lieu of parkland dedication prior to subdivision and development of the property. F. Findings of insignificant impact 1. The site is void of any natural or man-made resources, and there are no geologic hazards present on the site. Expansive soils may be present on-site, however, proposed mitigation will ensure stable construction. 2. The proposed residential development is consistent with the General Plan and associated elements and is not anticipated to achieve short term to the disadvantage of long term environ- mental 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 noise which could prove hazardous to the health and welfare of human beings. G. Consultation 1. City of Chula Vista Steve Griffin, Assoc. Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Eng. Shabda Roy, Assoc. Eng. Tom Dyke, Plan Checker Ted Monsell, Fire Marshal Duane Bazzel, Asst. Planner Tom Hyde, Applicants designer 2. Documents IS-81-40 Darley Apts. 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 ' .~ ~NTAL RE¥IEW COOPdDINATOR city of chula vista planning department environmental review section City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 23, 1983 Page 16 5. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Robinhood Mall Condominium Chula Vista Tract 83-2 Robert E. and Patricia F. Casey A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant has submitted a tentative subdivision map known as Robinhood Mall Condominium, Chula Vista Tract 83-2 in order to subdivide approximately 1.66 acres located at the southeast corner of Brandywine Avenue and Sequoia Street into two lots and construct a 14-unit condominium project on the southerly lot (Lot 2, 0.8 acres}. 2. An Initial Study, IS-81-48, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Committee on June 25, 198l. The Environmental Review Coordinator 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 readopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-81-48. 2. Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Robinhood Mall Condominium, Chula Vista Tract 83-2, subject to the following conditions: a. Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to approval of the Final Map. b. The developer shall obtain a construction permit for the curb outlets and driveway construction with public right of way prior to approval of the Final Map. c. The developer shall record Covenants, Conditions and restrictions {CC&R's), subject to the approval of the City Council, concurrently with the recordation of the final map. d. The City of Chula Vista shall be made a part of the CC&R's which shall include but not be limited to the following: 1. Prohibition against outside radio and television antennae. 2. Provisions for maintenance of all common areas, buildings, fencing or walls and private utility systems. -1- City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 23, 1983 Page 17 C. DISCUSSION 1. Adjacent zoning and land use. North P-C Neighborhood shopping center South P-C Recreational vehicle storage for Point Robinhood Development East P-C Clustered single-family detached dwellings (Point Robinhood). West R-l-5 Single family attached dwellings (Brandywine). 2. Existing site characteristics. The 1.66-acre project site is an elongated two-level parcel with approximately 410 feet of frontage on the east side of Brandywine Avenue and approximately 180 feet along the south side of Sequoia Street. The northerly portion (0.86 acres) is developed with a single story commercial (neighborhood) structure and 49 parking spaces. Access is provided by a single two-way driveway from Brand~a~ine Avenue. The majority of the .8 acre southerly area is approximately g feet lower in elevation and is vacant; however, there is an existing two-way driveway serving the recreational vehicle storage area to the south. 3. Tentative map and proposed development. a. The applicant intends to subdivide the subject property into two lots separating the commercial development from the vacant area which was approved for residential development by the Planning Commission and City Council in 1981 at a density of 17 units per acre. On November 9, 1981, the Design Review Committee approved the design for the residential development. b. The proposed development will consist of 14 townhouse units in two two-story buildings. There will be one four-plex and one lO-unit building. The lO-unit building will be located adjacent to the easterly property line and the four-plex near the northerly property line forming an "L" shaped complex. The parking (26 spaces) will be located in front of the units and will be served by the existing driveway. The access to the RV storage area will remain. c. The architecture is of contemporary design with a stucco exterior, wood trim, and wood shake-shingle roof. D. ANALYSIS 1. The purpose of the tentative map is to divide the property into two lots to permit the sale of the 14-townhouse units as condominiums. The site plan and building architecture was previously approved by the City and the project's design complies with the City's condominium standards. 2. The developer is responsible to pay for all required fees such as: Residential Construction Tax, Park Acquisition and Development, Traffic Signal Participation, sewer repayment and sewer district. -2- City Planning Commis~ ~ Agenda Items for Meeting of March 23, 1983 Page 18 E. FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative subdivision map for Robinhood Mall Condominium, Chula Vista Tract 83-2, is found to be in conformance with the various elements of the City's General Plan based on the following: 1. The site is physically suitable for the residential and commercial development and the proposal conforms to all standards established by the City for such projects. 2. The design of the subdivision will not affect the existing improvements -- streets, sewers, etc. -- which have been designed to avoid any serious problems. 3. The project is in substantial conformance with the Chula Vista General Plan Elements as follows: a. Land Use - The proposed project is in keeping with the General Development Plan of the Point Robinhood Planned Community zone. b. Circulation - The project will not require the extension or dedication of streets. c. Housing - The project will provide additional housing choices in this segment of the community. d. Conservation - The site has been previously graded, therefore, there will be no loss of natural habitat or vegetation. e. Park and Recreation, Open Space - The developer is required to pay the Park Acquisition and Development fee prior to recordation of the final map. f. Seismic Safety - The La Nacion fault line and boundary line abut the subject property. g. Safety - The site is well within the response time of the fire station located on East Oneida. h. Noise - The units are required to meet interior noise levels as determined by the Uniform Building Code. i. Scenic Highway - The adjacent streets are not designated as scenic routes. j. Bicycle Routes - The existing streets can accommodate bicycle traffic. k. Public Buildings - No public buildings are planned on the project site. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 23, 1983 Page 19 4. Pursuant to Section 66412.2 of the Subdivision Map Act, the Commission certifies that it has considered the effect of this approval on the housing needs of the region and has balanced those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City and the available fiscal and environmental resources. WPC 0223P/OO14Z VT -4- ELEMENTARY P -~ R ~ PROJECT AREA SECZ.IOIA I ATTACHED ,, /.: I I VAC I I I · VAC · *:~ I· PCS 85- 2 -- J I~$ Condominium units(new) City Planning Commis~n ~ Agenda Items for Meet.ng of March 23, 1983 Page 20 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-83-6~ request for a reduction in the sideward setback at 824 David Drive - Mariano and Joann In~argiola A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant is requesting a reduction in the required sideyard setback from l0 feet to 7 1/2 feet in order to construct an ll 1/2' x 24' family room addition onto the existing single family dwelling located at 824 David Drive in the R-1 zone. 2. The project is exempt from environmental review as a class 5(el exemption. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings contained in Section E of this report, adopt a motion to approve the request, ZAV-83-6, for a reduction in the sideyard from 10 feet to 7 1/2 feet subject to the following conditions: 1. No second story addition shall be located closer than l0 feet to the easterly property line. 2. The family room addition shall be architecturally compatible with the existing structure through the use of the same exterior materials and colors (this includes the roof). C. DISCUSSION 1. Existing site characteristics. a. The subject property is a 7322 sq. ft. (70.75' x 103.5') parcel located on the north side of David Drive. David Drive, in the vicinity of the subject property, has a 10% downgrade to the west. Consequently, the lot to the east is approximately 5 feet higher in elevation and the lot to the west approximately 5 feet lower. The project site is also 15+ feet higher than the properties immediately to the north. The majority of d~nslope, a horizontal distance of 38+ feet, is on the applicant's property. A concrete drainage culvert is lo~ted adjacent to the rear property line. Because of the 30 foot slope, the depth of the level area is 65+ feet and the level pad area is 4600 sq. ft. The level area has been increa~d by the construction of a 5 foot high retaining wall along the easterly property line. The wall jogs 5 feet inward at a point near the rear of the house. A chain link fence is constructed on top of the wall on the property line. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 23, 1983 Page 21 b. The three bedroom home presently observes the following setbacks: front - 15 feet; side (west) - 5 feet; side (east) - 19 feet (house) and 13 1/2 feet (garage); and, rear - 47 feet (17 1/2 feet to the top of slope). A portion of the two car garage has been converted into a den. The garage door is still in place and the area immediately behind the door is used for storage. The applicant has stated that the garage had already been converted when the home was acquired. The City has no record of the conversion. A covered patio area is located at the northeast corner of the home adjacent to the living room. A jaccuzi occupies the remaining level rear yard area. 2. The applicant wishes to construct an ll 1/2' x 24' family addition on the east side of the house, northerly from the garage (den). The addition will be 7 1/2 feet from the property line and 12 feet from the adjacent home. Access to the addition will be via the kitchen/dining area. There will be two windows on the east side, one window on the south and a sliding glass door on the north side. 3. Previous variance. In 1974 the Zoning Administrator granted a similar variance to the applicant. After being granted two one-year extensions, the applicant allowed the variance to expire, requiring that a new application be submitted. The new application was filed and considered by the Zoning Administrator; however, an objection to the variance was received from the adjacent property owner to the east (the adjacent property owner did not object to the original request), requiring that the matter be scheduled for public hearing (Section 19.14.050B of the Municipal Code). 4. Sideyard setbacks. The subject property and the surrounding properties were developed approximately 23 years ago. At that time, the required sideyard setback was 5 feet. Most of the homes developed during that period were developed with 5 foot setbacks. However, because of the topography of this development, the majority of the homes have at least one sideyard in excess of 5 feet because of a difference in pad elevations resulting in a slope condition slope between lots. The Code was changed in 1969 requiring that one sideyard be at least 10 feet and the other may be 3 feet. There must be at least l0 feet between structures. Even though the homes in the area were constructed prior to 1969, if a home has a setback of 10 feet it must be retained unless a variance is granted. D. ANALYSIS 1. Because the rear 38 feet of the property is encumbered by a downslope, the lot only has 4600 sq. ft. of level area. The existing level rear yard area is developed with a covered patio and jaccuzi. This patio cover could be removed and the family room constructed in the rear yard. However, the remaining usable open space would be largely on the east side of the house, away from the existing jaccuzzi. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 23, 1983 Page 22 2. The adjoining property should not be adversely affected by the approval this request, nor should there be a loss of privacy. The property is 5 feet higher in elevation and there will be 13 feet of separation between structures. In addition, the only windows on that side of building of the adjoining property are two small bathroom windows. The sideyard does not appear to be used for anything other than access around the building. 3. The fact that a portion of the garage has been converted into additional living space should not be a significant factor in determining whether this request should be approved because the conversion could occur after approval of a variance. The appearance of the home has not been altered by the conversion (the garage door is still in place) and the existing curved-in driveway provides ample off-street parking which does not obstruct the vision of any other driveways. E. FINDINGS 1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. Said hardship 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 rear 38 feet of the subject property is encumbered by a downward slope resulting in a level pad area of only 4600 sq. ft. The existing floor plan, improvements and conditions (including usable open space) make it more practical to locate the addition in the side yard area. 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. The subject property was developed at a time when the required sideyard setback was 5 feet and there are other properties in the immediate vicinity developed with 5 foot sideyards. The granting of this request will bring the property into parity with those properties. 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 or the public interest. There will be a 13 foot separation between structures and there a 5 foot difference in elevation, therefore the adjoining property should not adversely affected or have a loss of privacy. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 23, 1983 Page 23 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 General Plan will not be affected by the granting of this request. WPC 0244P S_ITE PLAN City Planning Commi ~n Agenda Items for Meeting of March 23, 1983 Page 24 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-83-7 request for a reduction in the driveway width servin~ two proposed panhandle lots - Donna Souza A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant is requesting a reduction in the required driveway width from 20 feet to 17 feet to serve two @roposed panhandle lots behind the existing single family dwelling located at ~56 "K" Street in the R-1 zone. 2. The project is exempt from environmental review as a Class 3(a) exemption. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion to approve the request (ZAV-83-7) for a driveway reduction from 20 feet to 17 feet at 956 "K" Street subject to the following conditions. 1. The common sewer serving the two proposed panhandle lots shall be subject to a special legally recorded agreement regarding its maintenance. Said agreement shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney prior to recordation of the parcel map. 2. The driveway adjacent to the existing residence shall be paved to a width of 16 feet. The remaining area adjacent to the home shall be landscaped with low level shrubbery. 3. The grading plan shall indicate all trees having a trunk diameter of 6 inches or greater. The City Landscape Architect shall determine which trees are to be retained. 4. The Fire Marshal may require an horizontal standpipe for fire protection of the two panhandle lots as part of the parcel map procedure. The applicant shall contact the Fire Marshal for specific details and requirements. C. DISCUSSION 1. Existing site characteristics. The subject property is a 28,286 sq. ft. parcel with approximately 86 feet of frontage on the south side of "K" Street between First and Second Avenues. The depth of the lot is 340 feet on the east side and 318.4 feet on the west. The property is developed with an older single family home which is approximately 62 in width and is located 6 feet from the westerly property line and 18 feet from the easterly property line. The house is located 38 City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 23, 1983 Page 25 feet from the front property line. Other structures include a wood frame barn, an aviary and a retaining wall. The property slopes away from the street with the front of the lot being 15 feet higher than the rear. A natural drainage channel traverses the rear portion of the lot. There are a number of mature trees on the property. 2. Proposed development. The applicant intends to subdivide the property into 3 residential lots and one common lot used for access, parking and utility easements. The existing house will have a lot size of 8071 sq. ft., and the lot immediately to the south will be 7287 sq. ft. The most southerly lot will have a lot size of 7347 sq. ft. Parking for three cars is to be provided in an area between the two proposed lots. The driveway, which requires the removal of a block wall, will be 20 feet in width south of the existing dwelling. In front and alongside the existing dwelling (approximately 75 feet) the driveway will be 17 feet in width. Except for the driveway width, the proposed development meets the requirements of the Municipal Code for panhandle lots. 3. Similar developments. Within the general vicinity there are four other developments involving panhandle lots. Two of the panhandle developments are contiguous to the subject property on the east and west sides. The panhandle development to east has a 17 foot wide access serving four lots. 4. Objection to the variance. The Planning Department received an objection from the property owner residing at 154 "K" Street citing a loss of privacy and mature trees as reasons for the objection. Because of the objection, the matter was scheduled for public hearing as required by Code. D. ANALYSIS 1. The existing single family dwelling is unusually wide being 62 feet in width and it is located to within 6 feet of the westerly property line. In order to provide an access 20 feet wide, the house would have to be turned or a portion of the house removed. In either case, this would be a costly expense. 2. The standards established in the Code for panhandle lots provide for the development of one to four lots. The access driveway for one lot is 15 feet and 20 feet for two or more lots. The 15 feet was based more on providing access by emergency vehicles than for the residents. The 20 foot driveway provides for the increase in traffic generated by more than one lot. The necessity for a 20 foot wide access drive to serve two lots is questionable when the length of the driveway and configuration is considered. Over two-thirds of the driveway complies with the 20 foot width requirement and the entire driveway is straight offering good visibility to the users. A nearby development to the east has a 17 foot wide drivaeway serving four lots. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 23, 1983 Page 26 3. The lot immediately to the east adjacent to the area of proposed driveway reduction also has its driveway adjacent to the property line therefore the reduction would not affect the adjoining home. 4. The existing house in front does not have a garage. However, a paved area 24 feet x 32 feet is provided in the front for parking. The Planning Commission may wish to require the removal of that paving area in the front and a new garage constructed in the rear. E. FINDINGS 1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. Said hardship 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. Even though the subject property is 4 times the minimum lot size (28,286 sq. ft.) of the R-1 zone and has a lot width of nearly 86 feet, the older single family dwelling encumbers 62 feet of the lot width. To require removal of a portion of the existing dwelling to provide an additional 2'-3" of access width would pose an undue hardship. 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 this neighbors. The subject property is located within an area where other properties were allowed to develop panhandle lots with less than 20 feet of access. 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 or the public interest. The adjacent property to the east most affected by the proposed reduction has its driveway and garage adjacent to the common property line. Aside from the driveway reduction, the development meets the regulations governing panhandle lots. 3. 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 General Plan is not affected by the granting of this request. WPC 0245P ~_~ KEARNEY STREET ----4 I I I '11 ! i fA I-- , i ~ Church ~--I ----;I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Private ~-~ ----I'-L II - Elementary ~-1 ---i--~ I ' I '' I I'1 I I I I School ~ I ! , , ) ~ , ~ I ~ I I I I I I I I xl ~ I ~---.~-Si~gla , F~lmily I:~es~dentipl ~ ,l K ii STREET q ', ..... SIERRA WAY /Z/~V- 83-7 l~q~, reductio~ ~ driveway wz~fh. L/56 ~" Street City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 23, 1983 Page 27 8, PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a revision to the adopted precise plan standards (PCZ-83-A) 9overnin9 the development of propert~ located at 446-450 Fourth Avenue - Dr. Mark Jenkins/William Whitt A. BACKGROUND 1. On October 26, 1§82, the City Council approved a zone change (PCZ-83-A) for 0.88 acres located at 446-450 Fourth Avenue from R-3 to C-O-P together with precise plan standards governing the development of the property. 2. The applicant had submitted a precise plan along with the request for rezoning which was approved by the Design Review Committee on October 7, 1982, contingent upon approval of the rezoning of the site. The precise plan proposal consisted of a 29,000 sq. ft. five-story (58 feet in height) medical building located at the near of the property (192 feet from the street) with surface parking in front of the building and subterranean parking under the entire lot (144 parking spaces). The plan contained 29 compact spaces or 20% of the required parking. 3. The applicant has now submitted a revised precise plan which is being considered by the Design Review Committee on March 17, 1983. The decision of the Committee will occur after this report is completed, therefore a verbal report on the decision of the Committee will be made at the Commission meeting. 4. The new precise plan consists of a 32,349 sq. ft. four-story medical building with surface parking in front and under the building (no parking was proposed under the building in the original proposal) as well as subterranean parking under the entire lot. A total of 162 parking spaces will be provided, 44 of which (27%) will be compact parking spaces. Because of the new parking under the building, the revised plan eliminates landscaping areas planned in front and on both sides of the building. However, the new plan affords the opportunity to provide larger landscaping materials in the parking lot. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion revising Resolution PCZ-83-A by increasing the percentage of compact parking spaces from 20% to 27%. C. DISCUSSION At the time of rezoning and adoption of the precise plan standards, it was noted that many cities in the County have provisions for compact spaces in the commercial and industrial zones, ranging from 40% to 70%. It was for that reason the 20% compact provision was considered acceptable. The proposed increase to 27% is relatively minor and is still much less than other jurisdictions allow. It is, therefore, recommended that the request be approved. WPC 0241P/OO14Z City Planning Commi.~'~n ~' Agenda Items for Me~..ng of March 23, 1983 Page 28 9. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-83-4, consideration of an amendment to Chapter 19.60 prohibitin~ freewa~ oriented price signs - Cit~ Initiated A. BACKGROUND 1. On February l, 1983, the City Council adopted an interim ordinance valid for 90 days relating to the prohibition of price signs on freeway oriented sign in the "P" zones. The ordinance will expire on May 2, 1983, unless extended by the City Council. 2. A zoning text amendment to Chapter 19.60 of the Municipal Code replacing the interim ordinance and relating to freeway oriented price signs has been prepared for Planning Commission and City Council consideration. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance amending Chapter 19.60 by a new section 19.60.185 to read as follows: Sec. 19.60.185 Freeway Oriented Price Signs Prohibited - When. No sign which is specifically oriented to be viewed from any freeway in the City of Chula Vista shall contain any prices for products or services being offered for sale or use; provided, however, that such prohibition shall not apply to any legally authorized billboards. Any existing signs shall be removed not later than three years from the adoption of this provision. C. DISCUSSION The City Council directive specifically dealt with freeway oriented price signs in any zone to which the "P" Precise Plan Modifying District is attached. While most properties located at the freeway interchanges have the "P" zone attached to the underlying zone, there are a number of properties adjacent to "P" zoned properties which do not. It is possible that a price sign could be part of a freeway oriented sign which meets the underlying regulations of the zone and not have the "P" zone attached. In order to fulfill the intent of the City Council regarding freeway oriented price signs, the proposed amendment does not distinguish between those signs which are in the "P" zone from those which are not, so long as they are visible from the freeway - they would not be permitted. The proposed amendment provides another tool for the City to use in regulating the development at freeway interchanges. The goal of the City in applying the "P" zone to freeway interchanges was to enhance the scenic quality of these key entrances to the City. The "P" zone provides for regulation of the density or the intensity of development, detailed land and site planning, control of signing programs, careful attention to control of earthmoving and landscaping, and the design and appearance of structures and equipment. The prohibition of freeway price signs will further enhance the scenic quality of Chula Vista for City residents and freeway travelers alike. WPC 0246P