Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1986/02/26 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, February 26, 1986 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meetings of January 8 and January 22, 1986 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued) Proposed amendments to the certified Local Coastal Program in the Bayfront Specific Plan 2. PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued) Minor Use Permit PCC-86-20M: Request to appeal denial by the San Diego County Zoning Administrator for a convenience center at 3023 Main Street (Montgomery) - Phillips Reynolds Engineering 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-86-7: Consideration of amendments to Title 10 and Title 19 of the Municipal Code by including boats, trailers, campers, and items of a similar nature in the definition of "vehicle" as it relates to existing regulations regarding the parking, storage and repair of vehicles on public and private property 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-86-6: Consideration of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance which would establish provisions regulating the maximum building area in proportion to the lot size for new construction, remodeling, and new additions to existing dwellings within single family and duplex residential zones. DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT to the Regular Business Meeting of March 12, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers February 20, 1986 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: George Krempl, Director of Planning ~ SUBJECT: Local Coastal Program Amendments #2 A public hearing for the Planning Commission to consider amendments to the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program, Mid-Bayfront subarea, was scheduled for February 26, 1986. Due to proposed changes to the amendments which require additional environmental review, it requested that the hearing be continued to May 28, 1986. GK:PRB:rd February 20, 1986 TO: The Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: George Krempl, Director of Planning ~ SUBJECT: Action by the Montgomery Planning Committee on County Zoning Administrator Appeal for Minor Use Permit PCC-86-20M The attached report includes an analysis and staff recommendation involving an appeal from the action of the County Zoning Administrator on a project located in the Montgomery Planning Area. After hearing testimony from residents in the area voicing their support that the subject retail establishment would be of benefit to the residents residing in the area, and subject to specific conditions recommended by the Montgomery Planning Committee, the project was recommended for approval by a 4-2 vote which would, in effect, overturn the decision of the County Zoning Administrator. The specific conditions recommended for approval by the Montgomery Planning Committee are: 1. The project be referred to the Design Review Committee for final site plan and architectural approval. 2. Specific restrictions on video games to be located within any of the commercial establishments. 3. That consideration be given to moving the gas pump location further to the east on site. 4. That the setback variance from 15 feet to zero feet be approved. 5. That the balance of the property (parcel 3) of the parcel map be developed to an industrial use. In order for the Planning Commission to overrule a recommendation of the Montgomery Planning Committee on a conditional use permit, a 5/7 vote is needed. Since only four Commissioners were present for the February 13 meeting, the item was continued so that more members of the Commission would be present to consider the appeal. GK:je Attachment City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 26, 1986 Page 1 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Minor Use Permit PCC-86-20M; request to appeal denial by the San Diego County Zonin9 Administrator of a Minor Use Permit for a convenience center at 3023 Main Street (Montgomery), Phillips Reynolds Engineering A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant is appealing a decision made by the San Diego County Zoning Administrator, denying their application for a convenience grocery store, gasoline sales area, and satellite retail stores on industrial zoned property, together with a reduction in required rear yard setback from 15 feet to zero feet for the proposed commercial building. The property is located at the southeast corner of Main Street and Hermosa Avenue and is zoned M-52, a zone which permits limited impact industrial uses. 2. For new projects located within the Montgomery annexation area, staff project analysis is based upon standards set forth in the San Diego County Zoning Ordinance, as incorporated in Chapter 19.70 of the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code. Ordinance regulations regarding minor use permit appeals state that the decision of the Planning Commission is final. The appeal may not be brought before the City Council. The recommendations of the Montgomery Planning Committee may only be overridden by a vote of 5 of the 7 members of the Planning Commission. 3. An Initial Study, Log # 85-18-17, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the San Diego County Environmental Planning Division on October 17, 1985. 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 significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on Log # 85-18-17. 2. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion to deny the applicant request and uphold the decision of the San Diego County Zoning Administrator. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent Zonin9 and Land Use North M-52, RU-29 Mixed uses, primarily commercial and industrial with some residential South M-52, M-54 Vacant East M-52 Industrial (mini warehouses) and mixed uses West M-52 Vacant City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 26, 1986 Page 2 Existing Site Characteristics The proposed site is a vacant, level, graded lot containing 1.14 acres. Located on the southeast corner of Main Street and Hermosa Avenue, the subject lot is identified as parcel 2 of tentative parcel map 18379. The site lies in an area of mixed industrial, commercial and some residential uses, located in the southern region of the 1985 Montgomery annexation area and directly north of the Otay River Valley. Proposed Use The applicant is proposing to develop the subject lot for commercial retail uses in an industrial zone, involving a convenience grocery store, gasoline sales area, and satellite stores. The facilities would contain an area of about 12,216 square feet, all on one story, and a total of 61 on-site parking spaces would be provided where 59 are required by County ordinances. A Minor Use Permit is required to allow these types of retail commercial activities to be located in an industrial zone. Similar Establishments Existing service commercial facilities already present in the area include a 7-11 store at the southwest corner of Third Avenue and Anita Street (approximately 1/2 mile to the northeast), and a mini-market service station located at the northwest corner of Third Avenue and Main Street (approximately 1/4 mile to the east). D. ANALYSIS The operative County zoning on the property, M-§2, is intended to create and preserve areas where manufacturing and industrial uses with low nuisance characteristics may locate. Nonindustrial supportive uses are allowed upon the issuance of a Minor Use Permit. The zoning ordinance currently regulating Montgomery indicates that convenience sales and personal service uses represent businesses that service residential neighborhoods; they are "primarily engaged in the provision of frequently or recurrently needed small personal items or services for residents who live within reasonable walking distance of the establishment." An application for a Minor Use Permit was filed for the proposed use with the San Diego County Department of Planning and Land Use on September 17, 1985. The application was denied by the County Zoning Administrator on December 13, 1985, stating that the site could not be considered to be convenient to any applicable concentration of residential uses that demand additional commercial services within walking distance, in addition to what is al ready present in this area. In the staff report to the County Zoning Administrator, it was also stated that if there is a demonstrated need for additional commercial facilities in this area, then a proper method to accomplish this would be to rezone the property to a commercial zone. The staff is not recommending any rezoning consideration, and certainly not before the Montgomery Specific Plan is completed. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 26, 1986 Page 3 After detailed review of the Minor Use Permit request, staff concurs with the decision of the County Zoning Administrator. Convenience sales and personal service uses are already present immediately adjacent to and within reasonable walking distance of residences within the area, so that conversion of an industrial zoned lot to service commercial uses cannot be justified. In addition to land use issues, there are also concerns that the location of the gas pumps in relation to parking for the ?-ll could create traffic conflicts on the site, as well as contributing to traffic congestion at the intersection of Main Street and Hermosa Avenue. Finally, there is no mention in the application of the architectural design of the proposed buildings. This appeal is being heard at a time when the Municipal Code is in the process of being amended to require use permits, multi-family, commercial and industrial uses within Montgomery to undergo the design review process prior to project approval. If approved, staff is of the opinion that this project should also address design issues in order to insure that the project meets the City's design policy objectives. E. FINDINGS 1. That the proposed use at the location is not necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. Commercial facilities that provide this service are already present within reasonable walking distance of residences within the area, and a demonstrated demand for additional facilities has not been shown. 2. That such use will, 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 type and intensity of the proposed commercial use is incompatible with the surrounding industrial zone. Increased traffic and pedestrian activity could interfere with the operation of limited impact industrial uses permitted in the M-52 zone. WPC 2470P Please send reply to office checked: [] 5201 RuffinRoad, SuiteB [] WALTER C. LADWIG,DIRECTOR [] 334 Vis Vera Cruz San Diego, CA 92123-1666 5201 RuffinRoad, SuiteB San Marcos, CA 92069~2838 (619) 565-3072 San Diego, CA 92123-1668 (619) 741-4238 (619) 565-3001 October 17, 1985 TO: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR FROM: ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING RECOMMENDED FINDING OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION: ZAP85-035, Log No. 85-18-17 Best Construction/South Bay FINDING: The Environmental Planning staff has examined the Initial Study below and is recommending that the proposed project will not have significant effect on the environment, and that an Environmental Impact Report need not be prepared pursuant to the San Diego County Procedures for Environmental Impact Review, revised August l, 1983. INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION: The proposed project is a request for a Minor Use Permit to allow the construction of a 7-Eleven store and satellite stores located on Main Street between Hermosa Avenue and Fresno Avenue in the South Bay area. A gasoline sales area is proposed near the 7-Eleven store. Total floor area is 11,808 square feet. THOMAS BROS COORDINATES: 71, E3 FIELD CHECKED: yes ANALYST: J. Brinton South Bay Subregional/Comm. Plan (15) Limited Impact Industrial M52 Use Regulation Limited Impact Industrial ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The nearly level site is located in an area of mixed land uses, with the primary uses being industrial and commercial. The site is bounded on the north by Main Street and on the west by Hermosa Avenue. A large mini-storage facility is on adjacent land to the east. To the south, between the site and Hermosa Avenue is vacant land. The site has been partially graded and cleared of vegetation. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS: None. ZAP85-035, Log No. 85-18-17 - 2 - October 17, 1985 MITIGATING MEASURES PROPOSED BY APPLICANT: None. REASONS TO SUPPORT FINDING OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION: No sensitive resources will be affected. NOTE: This action becomes final upon approval by the appropriate decision- m--~i-~-g body. ~ Additional copies of this Negative Declaration' may be obtained at the Environmental Planning Section, DPLU, 5201Ruffin Road, San Diego, CA 92123. NANC~ Environmental Planning Coordinator NW:JB:jcr cc: Bill Foott, Project Manager Best Construction, 3089 Main St., Chula Vista, CA 92011 Phillips-Reynolds Engineering~ Inc., 71 North Fourth Ave., Chula Vista, CA 92010 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: Office of Planning and Research FROM: (Public Agency) m 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 DPLU, County of San Dieao Sacramento, CA 95814 5201 Ruffin Rd., S,D, CA 92123 _ or ~[_ County Clerk County of San Dieao SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. ?ro3ec~ ~l:~e ZAP85-035, Loq No. 85-18-17 Bill Foott 565-5424 bsace blearinghouse Nunlber bonsacs verson ~elepnone Number (If submitted to Clearinghousel Projec~ Locasion The project is located on Main Street between Hermosa Avenue and Fresno Avenue in the South Bay area. ?~o3ec~ uesc~p~on ~ne propose~ project is a request for a Minor Use Permit to allow the construction of a 7-Eleven store and satellite stores. This is to advise that the D,epartment of Plannin9 and Land Use, ~Lea~ Agency or Kesponslole Agency~ has approved the above described project and has made the following determina- tions regarding the above described project: 1. The project will, __will not, have a significant effect on the environment-Z- 2. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant --to the provisions of CEQA. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the ---prowslons of CEQA. The EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval may be examined at : ~3. Mitigation measures were, were not, made a condition of the approval of the pro3ec~. 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations was, was not, adopted for this project. Date Received for Filing S~gna~ure [i~ie DPLU#427 Revised January 1985  illips Reynolds Eng. I~LOCATOR ~ I~CC-86-20M EXTRACT FROM MINUTES OF MONTGOMERY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING OF February 5, 1986 5. APPEAL-MINOR USE PERMIT-Tll STORE AND GAS SALES AT MAIN AND HERMOSA STREET Mr. Krempl presented the staff report and background information on this case indicating that the project had been initiated in San Diego County and considered by the County Zoning Administrator. The County Zoning Administrator denied the request with an appeal then to the County Planning Commission. Annexation took place at that point in time and the City of Chula Vista is picking up on the appeal process. This item will be forwarded to the City Planning Commission for their final resolve and disposition. Staff recommendation is for denial. Mr. Dick Reynolds, representing the applicant, testified as to the merits of the proposal. He mentions the following in support and consideration of the request: additional jobs for the area; added sales tax for the area, a significant number of residents within a half-mile service area of the facility; the retail use as being more attractive than the alternate industrial use; the fact that the 7-11 provides a different level of service than the convenience or snack facility located at the nearby service station; and, finally, with respect to the service pump location, it is sited properly on the site. Mr. Reynolds al so mentions that they feel that they were caught in the process of annexation between City and County procedures and staff and that a rejection by one individual, the County Zoning Administrator, should not be used against them. Questions from the Committee include the following: a. Mr. Patton asked some further questions with respect to the adequacy of lighting of the proposed retail use including perimeter lighting; he also questioned the location of the service pumps. Mr. Jeff Bequeth from 7-11, as well as another ?-ll representative, responded that the parking lot would be lit and that they were willing to work further on the design of the buildings, the parking lot, the site lighting, and the location of the gas pump with the City's Design Review Committee were that made a condition of approval. b. Mr. Fox stated that he had several issues: First, if it would be possible to approve the project with removal of the gas pumps in there entirely; second, the applicant's willingness to go through Design Review Committee approval; third, a restriction of no video games within the commercial entity; and, fourth, a limitation as to the age and/or the number of children which would be on premise at any one particular point in time. Mr. Bequeth noted that they were willing to discuss the issue of limited occupancy with respect to children and limitation on the video games. Previously, they had also indicated a willingness to be subject to design review; however, they felt that the gas pumps were an essential component of the request. c. Mr. Solomon stated that there was congestion, debris, and limited outside lighting at a similar 7-11 facility at Main and Melrose. d. Mr. Creveling questioned the applicant whether they had attempted to develop this land first under the existing zoning. The response was negative. e. Mr. Solomon expressed safety concerns with the heavy truck traffic on Main Street and pedestrians crossing Main Street to use the 7-11 facility. Mr. Solomon was also concerned about what might happen ultimately as far as the land use on parcel 3 to the south. The following citizens spoke in support of the request: Mr. Les Katcho, Mr. Bill Lampkin from "Jiffy Lube," Ms. Lynn Pankhurst, Mr. Charles Mance, and Mr. Alt. These speakers agreed with the need for jobs in the area; the preference of retail over industrial; the convenience service that this would provide for the immediate neighborhood; the fact that the nearby school was supervised and children were in a fenced-in area; that there were certain drawbacks with further industrial storage location in the vicinity; and in light of the Carousel Adult Entertainment business across Main Street, that the 7-11 would certainly not be considered a detriment or incompatible land use to the area. Following Committee discussion, it was moved by Mr. Solomon, seconded by Mr. Berlanga, to adopt the Negative Declaration on the environmental review for this project. Motion passed 6-0 with one member absent. It was then moved by Mr. Patton, seconded by Mr. Berlanga, to approve this minor use permit request subject to the following conditions: (1) That no video games be permitted on premise. (2) The project be subject to Design Review Committee approval. (3) That the setback variance from 15' to O' be approved. (4) That the balance of the site which is vacant to the south (Parcel 3) be developed to an industrial use. The motion passed 4-2. CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATE~NT OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS IcAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING OMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. LUIS CACHO DAM ROAD MINI STORAGE ** List th~ names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. HERMINIA F. CACHO LUIS CACHO 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. ** DON W. BYRON, PARTNER ** JOHN J. HEBERT, PARTNER 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No × If yes, please indicate person(s) Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, soc--6-~-T~[ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit." (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary~ Signature of applicant/date A-1IO Print or type name of applicant City Planning Commission Page 1 Agenda Items for Meeting of February 26, 1986 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-86-7: Consideration of amendments to Title 10 and Title 19 of the Muncipal Code regarding the parkin§, storage and repair of vehicles on public and private properts A. BACKGROUND 1. In 1983, the City Council adopted a general community appearance policy and program for the City of Chula Vista. The idea was aesthetic enhancement by controlling where vehicles might park in the front yards of homes and businesses both on public and private property. Vehicles included cars, trucks, boats, campers and camper shells, and recreational vehicles. In 1985, the Council expressed concern as to whether current ordinances were adequate, if any enforcement was occurring, and whether the program was effective. Issues raised included cars and recreational vehicles being parking on front lawn areas, unlicensed boats and camper shells being stored in driveways, semi-tractor trailer rigs being parked long-term in residential neighborhoods, adequate notice given for the above violation, and so on. Staff acknowledged that present regulations were in some cases vague, inconsistent and/or difficult to enforce. As a result, several draft amendments to the Municipal Code were presented to the Council and subsequently referred to the Planning Commission for public hearing and recommendation. The Commission originally considered the proposed amendments in workshop session on July 10, 1985. 2. On February 5, 1986, the Montgomery Planning Committee, by a vote of 6-0, recommended that (1) the proposed amendments to Title 10, the Chula Vista Municipal Code, be continued until the Committee can convene a workshop to further consider their effect on Montgomery, and (2) the proposed amendments to Title 19, the Zoning Ordinance portion of the Municipal Code, not be considered for application to Montgomery until a specific plan is adopted for the area. As you may recall, until a specific plan is adopted for the area, the Montgomery Community is subject to the County rather than the City zoning ordinance (Title 19). The subject amendments to Title 19 would thus not apply to the Montgomery Community. 3. An Initial Study, IS-86-29, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project, was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on February 16, 1986. 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 significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-86-29. City Planning Commission Page 2 Agenda Items for Meeting of February 26, 1986 2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance amending Title 10 and Title 19 of the Municipal Code as shown in Exhibit A attached hereto. C. DISCUSSION The sections of the Municipal Code that relate to the parking of vehicles in the front yard setback are found under Title 10 and Title 19. These sections are confusing and difficult to enforce because they neither define what constitutes a vehicle nor who (City staff, Planning Commission, Council, or homeowner) may designate an area to be improved and used for parking. The City Attorney has indicated that under current Code provisions, the general definition of a vehicle as a "self-propelled conveyance" has to be used. This would exclude boat trailers, camping trailers, etc. As an alternative, the City Attorney recommends that rather than using the word vehicle, that specific words like vehicle, boat, vacation trailer, camping trailer, boat trailer, camper, recreational vehicle, etc. be inserted. In addition, he suggests that the term "designated area" be changed to "area designated and approved by the Zoning Adminis- trator. Thus the proposed amendments would clearly define what may or may not be parked or placed in front yard areas and that the areas used for these purposes must be paved. Licensed trailers, including trailer mounted boats, recreational and camping trailers, would be permitted in such areas along with automobiles and recreational vehicles. On the other hand, non-mounted camper shells and boats not on licensed vehicle trailers would be prohibited from being stored in front yard areas regardless of whether that area is paved or not. These items would have to be stored within a garage or carport, in rear or side yard areas, or in off-site storage yards. Another issue that has not been addressed previously, but that is equally significant, is the parking of semi-truck tractors on residential driveways. Until recently, it was generally believed that the Code did not prohibit such parking. However, the City Attorney has recently ruled that Section 10.52.090, which prohibits parking of commercial vehicles (with a gross weight in excess of 10,000 lbs.) in residential areas for more than five hours, includes parking on driveways. A proposed amendment has been added to clearly reflect this ruling. It is also proposed that our zoning enforcement personnel be given citation authority in order to make our enforcement of these regulations more efficient. Citations could be issued after warnings given to correct the violation. The current practice of giving repeated letters of warning, followed by a formal com- plaint through the City Attorney's office, is time consuming and inefficient. A number of cities in San Diego County (Imperial Beach, National City, Oceanside, Vista, Santee, and San Diego) and most of the cities in Lost Angeles and Orange Counties have instituted the citation process and have foudnd it much more effective. Finally, it is proposed that existing locational criteria which apply to the repair of vehicles would also apply to boats, campers, trailers and items of a similar nature. City Planning Commission Page 3 Agenda Items for Meeting of February 26, 1986 Exhibit "A" shows the current Code wording and recommended wording for those sections under consideration. EXHIBIT A DRAFT PROPOSED WORDING: 10.52.040 Stopping, standing or parking--Within or on parkways-- Prohibited. No person shall stop, stand, ~ P?~ or place a vehicle, boat, trailer camper, or any other ro ert~ w~th~n any parkway. In add~ ~o~ ~~tin?~e~[c6mentpers°nnel PROPOSED WORDING: 10.52.090 Commercial vehicles--Parking in residential districts prohibited when. No person shall park any commercial vehicle having a manufacturer's gross vehicle weight rating of ten thousand pounds or more for more than five hours in any residential district (which includes parking on private property) except: A. While loading or unloading property, which requires time in addition to such five hour period to complete such work; or B. When such vehicle is parked in connection with, and in aid of, the performance of a service to or on property in the block in which such vehicle is parked and time in addition to such five hour period is reasonably necessary to complete such service. PROPOSED WORDING: 10.84.020 Parking prohibited on portions of private property. No vehicle, vacation trailer, camping trailer, boat trailer, camper, recrea- tional vehicle, or item of a similar nature considering size, use, and aethetic impact, may be parked or placed within the front or exterior yard setback area or the parkway area of the public right-of-way except in paved areas desiqnated by the Zonin9 Administrator. ~/~$~%~/~/~y~/~y~y~/$~$} No vehicle~ vacation trailer, camping trailer, boat trailer, camper, recreational vehicle, or item of a similar nature considering size, use, and aesthetic impact, may be parkud or placed in any exterior side yard setback area unless screened with a solid fence and gate not less than six feet in height. Items that are not self-propelled vehicles, licensed trailers, or on licensed trailers may not be placed in the front or exterior yard setback area or driveway whether paved or not. PROPOSED WORDING: 10.84.030 Citation of vehicles parked in prohibited areas. Any regularly employed and salaried officer of the police department or ~ zoning enforcement 6ff~ ~ may cite a vehicle for a wolation of Section 10.84.020; provided, however, ~E6//a/fff~/c/ak~//gE~77/ffJ/r~W~ ~7~¢~ a warning in the form provided by the police department of the city shall first be placed upon the vehicle. Twenty-four hours .afte[ the placement of such warning~ %~e/~ff$~/~aY/$~& the citation may be issueD. PROPOSED WORDING: 19.58.260 Repair of vehicles, boats, campers, and trailers. Repair of all motorcycles, motor trucks and motor vehicles, as defined in the Vehicle Code of the state of California, as well as boats, campers, trailers, and items of a similar nature, is prohibited in any residential zone unless all of the following conditions are met: A. All repair of vehicles, boats, campers, trailers, and items of a similar nature, shall be conducted within a totally enclosed garage or behind a soi~a tence or wall not less than six feet in height; B. No more than one vehicle, or one boat, or one camper, or one trailer, or one of an item of a similar nature, shall be in a state of disrepair or i. inoperable condition at any one time on any lot; C. No repair of vehicles, boats, campers, trailers, and items of a similar nature, shall be conducted as a business; D. No vehicle in a state of disrepair or in an inoperable condition may be located outside of a totally enclosed garage or a solid fence or wall not less than six feet in height, for a period of more than forty-eight hours; E. No repair of vehicles, boats, campers, trailers, and items of a similar nature, shall take place between the hours of ten p.m. and eight a.m.; F. No storage of parts of a vehicle, boat, camper, trailer, and items of a similar nature, #~ shall be located in any place where repair o) vehicles, boats, campers, trailers, and items of a similar nature, is prohibited herein. Any area used for such storage shall not exceed one hundred square feet in area; G. Nothing in this section is intended to prohibit the making of minor repairs, such as tire changing or repair, replacement of spark plugs and minor engine adjustments, lubrication or battery and brake adjustments by an owner on his vehicle ~W~f~ on said owner's lot, where said vehicle may be legally parked as determined by other sections of this Code. -2- PROPOSED WORDING: 19.62.110 Limitation on areas to be used. No part of any front yard shall be used for off-street parking or access, except such parts of said yard as are designated by the Zoning Administrator and improved therefor. PROPOSED WORDING: 19.62.150 Residential parking--Front setback restrictions--Generally. No re~ parking spaces or required maneuvering area, except as authoriz~ection 19.62.110, may be located in the front setback area; provided however, that driveways used solely for ingress and egress which do not constitute a portion of the required parking or aisle widths, as designated on the parking table chart adopted by the city, may occupy a maximum of fifty percent of said front yards. PROPOSED WORDING: 19.62.200 Enforcement of this chapter. For purposes of enforcement of this chapter, zoning enforcement personnel may issue citations to vehicles or property owners as appropriate whe,, Violations of the chapter occur; provided, however, a warning shall first bu issued, allowing 24 hours to correct the matter. This twenty-four hour period shall apply to the first violation on any single piece of property and not tv subsequent infractions on the same property. WPC 0618A -3- negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Community Appearance Zoning Text Amendment PROJECT LOCATION: Citywide PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista Planning Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 CASE NO: IS-86-29 DATE: February 16, 1986 A. Project Settin~ This project is a Zoning Text Amendment and therefore will have potential Citywide effect. B. Project Description PROPOSED WORDING: 10.52.040 Stopping, standing or parking--Within or on parkways-- Prohibited. No person shall stop, stand, ~ park, or place a vehicle, boat, trailer, camper, or any other property, within any parkway. In addition to personnel mentioned in other parts of this Title, zoning enforcement personnel have citation authority for purposes of enforcing this section. PROPOSED WORDING: 10.52.090 Commercial vehicles-JParking in residential districts prohibited when. No person shall park any commercial vehicle having a manufacturer's gross vehicle weight rating of ten thousand pounds or more for more than five hours in any residential district (which includes parkin9 on private property) except: A. While loading or unloading property, which requires time in addition to such five hour period to complete such work; or B. When such vehicle is parked in connection with, and in aid of, the performance of a service to or on property in the block in which such vehicle is parked and time in addition to such five hour period is reasonably necessary to complete such service. city of chula vista planning department environmental review section -2- PROPOSED WORDING: 10.84.020 Parking prohibited on portions of private property. No vehicle, vacation trailer, camping trailer, boat trailer, camper, recreational vehicle, or item of a similar nature considering size, use, and aesthetic impact, may be parked or placed within the front yard setback area or the parkway area of the pu ~-~ight~a,Y,,,~jj~~ designated by the Zoning Administrator. ~%~///~/2/a~s/y No vehicle, vacation trailer, camping trailer, boat trailer, camper, recreational vehicle, or item of a similar nature considerin~ size, use, and aesthetic impact, may be parked or placed in any exterior sidu yard setback area unless screened with a solid fence and gate not less than six feet in height. Items that are not self-propelled vehicles, licensed trailers, or on licensed trailers may not be placed in the front yard setback area or driveway whether paved or not. PROPOSED WORDING: 10.84.030 Citation of vehicles parked in prohibited areas. Any regularly employed and salaried officer of the police department or ~ zoning enforcement 6~$~ er~nel may cite a vehicle for a violation of Section 10.84.020; provided, ~-owever, ~7~ a warning in the form provided by the police department of the city shall first be placed upon the vehicle. Twenty-four hours after the placement ~f such warning~ ~/6~/~/~ the citation may be issued. PROPOSED WORDING: 19.58.260 Repair of vehicles, 'boats, campers, and trailers. Repair of all motorcycles, motor trucks and motor vehicles, as defined in the Vehicle Code of the state of California, as well as boats, campers, trailers, and items of a similar nature, is prohibited in any residential zone unless all of the following conditions are met: A. All repair of vehicles, boats, campers, trailers, and items of a similar nature, shall be conducted within a totally enclosed garage or behind ~ ~or wall not less than six feet in height; B. No more than one vehicle, or one boat, or one camper, or one trailer, or one of an item of a similar nature, shall be in a state of disrepair or i. inoperable condition at any one til.e on any lot; C. No repair of vehicles, boats, campers, trailers, and items of a similar nature, shall be conducted as a business; -3- D. No vehicle in a state of disrepair or in an inoperable condition may be located outside of a totally enclosed garage or a fence or wall not less than six feet in height, for a period of more than forty-eight hours; E. No repair of vehicles, boats, campers, trailers, and items of a similar nature, shall take place between the hours of ten p.m. and eight a.m.; F. No storage of parts of a vehicle, boat, camper, trailer, and items of a similar nature, #~ shall be located in any place where repair oF vehicles, boats, campers, trailers, and items of a similar nature, is prohibited herein. Any area used for such storage shall not exceed one hundred square feet in area; G. Nothing in this section is intended to prohibit the making of minor repairs, such as tire changing or repair, replacement of spark plugs and minor engine adjustments, lubrication or battery and brake adjustments by an owner on his vehicle W~W~ on said owner's lot, where said vehicle may be legally parked as determined by other sections of this Code. PROPOSED WORDING: 19.62.110 Limitation on areas to be used. No part of any front yard shall be used for off-street parking or access, except such parts of said yard as are designated by the Zonin9 Administrator and improved therefor. PROPOSED WORDING: 19.62.150 Residential parking-FFront setback restrictions--Generally. No required parking spaces or required maneuvering area, except as authoriz~ection 19.62.110, may be located in the front setback area; provided however, that driveways used solely for ingress and egress which do not constitute a portion of the required parking or aisle widths, as designated on the parking table chart adopted by the city, may occupy a maximum of fifty percent of said front yards. PROPOSED WORDING: 19.62.200 Enforcement of this chapter. For purposes of enforcement of this chapter, zonin9 enforcement personnel may issue citations to vehicles or property owners as appropriate whe,, violations of the chapter occur; provided, however, a warning shall first b,, issued, allowing 24 hours to correct the matter. This twenty-four hour period shall apply to the first violation on any single piece of property and not to subsequent infractions on the same property. -4- C. Compatibility with Zonin9 and Plans The project consists of a Zoning Text Amendment and therefore will be compatible with the zoning as amended. Also the proposed amendment does not conflict with any element of the General Plan. D. Identification of Environmental Effects The project is a Zoning Text Amendment and therefore any site specific impacts cannot be identified at this time. The provisions of this amendment provide for more stringent aesthetic controls throughout the City. This would result in an overall aesthetic improvement for the City of Chula Vista and no substantial negative impacts are anticipated. E. Findings of Insignificant Impact 1. The project involves a zoning plan text amendment; therefore, no natural or manmade resources will be affected. 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 project will enhance the aesthetic qualities of the City. G. Consultation ~ 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: 'Mando Liuag, Associate Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Duane Bazzel, Assistant Planner Gene Grady, Building and Housing Department Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer 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. ENVIROnmENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR WPC 2549P EN 6 (Rev. 5/85) city of chula vista planning department environmental review section FN ~ (R~v. 12/R2~ EXTRACT FROM MINUTES OF MONTGOMERY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 5, 1986 7. REPORT-COMMUNITY APPEARANCE PROGRAM. Mr. Krempl presented the background with respect to an amendment to the Chula Vista Municipal Code to two titles--Title 10 involving traffic and parking, and Title 19 which is the Zoning Section of the Code. Those changes which are being recommended to the Zoning title would have no immediate effect on Montgomery since the Montgomery area is governed by the County zoning ordinance and not the City ordinance. Therefore, were there to be any similar changes initiated for Montgomery, a subsequent amendment to the County zoning ordinance would have to be processed. Mr. Krempl then reviewed the various changes which pertained to vehicle repair and maintenance; where commercial vehicles may be parked in a residential setting and their limitation; a clarification of the definition of "vehicle"; sections dealing with where recreational vehicles, boats and campers may be parked on private property and generally that they should be on a paved surface; a prohibition on unlicensed vehicles being parked in those areas; a requirement for screening where vehicles are placed in a sideyard circumstance; and a requirement which would afford Zoning Enforcement personnel the right to issue citations for violations following a warning to the violation in question. Mr. Charles Mance spoke in opposition to the amendment, citing and distributing a copy of an Ohio court case whereby he alleges that similar provisions were found to be in violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Ms. Mary Hillby, an RV owner, also spoke in opposition to the request. Mr. Bill Applewhite and Mr. Ed Snyder spoke in opposition stating that they didn't feel the Committee should bother taking up this amendment this evening and his recommendation would be that it not be discussed. Mr. Tim Colvin requested clarification with respect to where the vehicles might be parked indicating that, if the requirement is simply for a paved area, this could result in a negative by having a greater proportion of a lot paved instead of grassed or landscaped. It was moved by Mr. Solomon, seconded by Mr. Patton, that the report be received and filed. Motion failed on a 3-3 tie with one member absent. It was then moved by Ms. Palmer and seconded that with respect to all amendment items preceded by Sub-Title 19 (i.e., any zoning provisions) not be considered for amendment or application to the Montgomery area until such time as the Planning Committee had completed its work in preparation of the Montgomery Specific Plan. Motion passed on a 5-1 vote with Mr. Patton voting "no" and one member absent. It was further moved by Ms. Palmer that with respect to those changes in Title l0 which could have applicability immediately to Montgomery, that the Planning Commission be requested to continue consideration of those items until such time as the Montgomery Planning Committee could convene a workshop, receive further input, and assess the implications of the proposed amendments to the Montgomery area. This motion was seconded by Mr. Patton and passed on a 6-0 vote with one member absent. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 26, 1986 Page 1 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Zoning Text Amendment PCA-86-6 Consideration of amendments to Title 19 of the Municipal Code to clarify and regulate remodeling or additions to existing dwellin~ units within single family and duplex residential zones and similarly regulated areas A. BACKGROUND 1. In May of 1985, a Planning staff report regarding the remodeling of a single-family residence on Country Club Drive was presented to the City Council. At that time Council directed staff to review existing City ordinances regarding remodeling standards and return with a report and recommendations for possible revisions to the Municipal Code. Council also directed staff to review other changes regarding lot coverage, setbacks, and height limitations. 2. On January 21, 1986, Council approved a report presented by staff recommending that the Planning Department proceed with draft ordinances for Planning Commission consideration which would clarify when remodeling is of such an extent as to constitute new construction, and establish a more effective means of controlling the bulk and scale or residential dwellings in single-family and duplex residential zones. 3. An Initial Study, IS-86-30, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on February 16, 1986. 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 significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-86-30. 2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance amending Title 19 of the Municipal Code to clarify and regulate any remodeling and new additions to existing dwellings within single-family and duplex residential zones and similarly regulated areas. The amended ordinance text reads as shown in Exhibit A attached hereto. C. DISCUSSION The proposed ordinance amendments came about as a result of controversy surrounding remodeling of a single-family dwelling on Country Club Drive in May of 1985. The house in question had undergone extensive remodeling allowed under current ordinance standards with the end result being a building of massive bulk and scale that was not in proportion to the lot or the surrounding neighborhood. Although the square footage of the house was increased dramatically, it was not required to be in conformance with City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 26, 1986 Page 2 existing zoning ordinance regulations; therefore, the owner had retained a one-car garage and was able to build using setbacks granted through a zoning variance for the building permit for the original structure. When the problem was brought to Council's attention, two major issues were highlighted. 1. Although building additions must be constructed in conformance wi th current ordinance standards, the existing dwelling does not. Remodeling and room additions regardless of the dollar value or size presently have no bearing requiring the owner to bring the entire unit up to present zoning standards. 2. For both remodeled homes and new construction, reliance on lot coverage and height limitations alone even under current zoning provisions may permit construction of a dwelling whose bulk and scale is out of proportion to the size of the lot. The draft ordinances seek to remedy the present situation and address these two issues by clarifying when remodeling should be treated as new construction, and by instituting more effective zoning tools for controlling bulk and scale in residential dwellings. Under draft Ordinance Section 19.22.170, remodeling and building additions whose square footage constitutes 50% or more than the original building permit allowed requires that the existing building be brought up to current zoning standards. Existing dwellings will not be required to comply with current building setback standards, however, new additions to the existing structure must comply with current setback standards. With respect to the bulk and scale of residential construction, Sections 19.22.60, 19.24.60 and 19.26.60 are revised in the draft ordinance to reduce the height limit for principal buildings from 35 feet to 24 feet by right, with an increase in height allowed up to 35 feet with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Draft ordinance Section 19.22.160 regulates bulk and scale further by setting a 45% floor area ratio, limiting the maximum amount of square feet which may be constructed relative to the size of the lot. D. ANALYSIS Redefinition of New Construction There are a number of different circumstances which affect construction of dwellings and new construction as opposed to a remodel of an existing structure. For example, under present Municipal Code requirements, the construction of new square footage or a duplex unit requires the construction of a two-car garage. However, conversion of the garage into a habitable area is authorized if paved parking is provided. Remodeling and room additions regardless of the dollar value or size presently have no bearing requiring the owner to bring the unit up to present zoning standards. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 26, 1986 Page 3 The 1979 Uniform Building Code stipulated that new construction equal to 50 percent or more of building value would require the building to conform to present code standards. That provision was later eliminated since it was all encompassing requiring new plumbing, wiring, window areas, etc. Under present code revisions, new construction of $1,000 or more requires the installation of smoke detectors. Plan submittal involves only the affected area, thus total development plans are not required. The Council's direction to redefine remodeling can best be addressed by establishing what constitutes new construction. The draft ordinance states that any combination of building additions added to the original building square footage equal to or greater than 50 percent of the original square footage shall require the building to be brought up to current zoning ordinance standards. A building size calculation is equitable and relatively easy to administer. There is one major drawback with this definition of new construction, however, in that compliance with some portions of the ordinance with respect to existing dwellings may place the property owner under undue hardship. For example, dwellings which do not conform to current building setback regulations may conceivably have to have portions altered or demolished in order to comply with present standards. For this reason, staff recommends that the existing structure in a remodeling project be exempt from compliance with current building setback standards, in the draft ordinance, only the portion considered new construction is required to conform. Control of Bulk and Scale in Residential Zones In the R-E, R-1 and R-2 zones, control over the bulk and scale of dwelling units are achieved primarily through a 40% lot coverage allowance (50% for duplex lots) and limitations on the height of principal buildings to 2-1/2 stories or 35 feet. The building height limit is inadequate because the 35 foot allowance has little relationship to actual building construction in typical single family areas. The lot coverage requirement used alone has also proven to be ineffective in some circumstances because it is only a two dimensional measure, while buildings constitute three dimensions. There are no controls over the bulk of additional stories which may be added until the height limit is reached. Revision of building height limitations and institution of floor area ratio (FAR) controls serve to limit both new construction and remodeling to a reasonable bulk and scale relative to the size of the lot. A revision of height limitations, lowering the allowable height to 24 feet by right still accommodates 95% of single family or duplex construction present within the City. Height increases to 35 feet will be allowed subject to approval of a conditional use permit. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 26, 1986 Page 4 A FAR limit of 45% sets an ultimate limit to the amount of square footage which may be constructed to 45% of the size of the lot. This figure includes garages, patios, and accessory buildings as well. The following table summarizes the amount of square footage allowed on typical residential lots of various sizes, using new dwellings currently in plan check with the City as examples. Sq. Ft. Lot Dwelling Allowable Size Sq. Ft. 45% FAR Addition Fi el dstone 4162 1613 1872.9 +260 4162 1 714 1872.9 +l 59 Pacific Ridge 5040 1703 2268 +565 Woodcrest Ridge 7140 2174 3213 +1039 In the Woodcrest Ridge example, a lot size of 7,500 square feet with the same size dwelling unit would, using the 45% FAR limitation, allow additions of up to 1,200 square feet. However, 1200 sq. ft. constitutes 55% of the square footage allowed in the original building pemit; the dwelling would have to be brought up to current zoning standards. WPC 2534P EXHIBIT A Chapter 19.04 Definitions 19.04.097 Floor Area Ratio {Residential) The numerical value obtained by dividing the total area of all the floors of a building or buildings included within the surrounding walls, by the total area of the premises. Chapter 19.22 R-E Residential Estates Zone 19.22.060 Height regulations. ~ ~ ~ ~ l l ~ l lq~ /~ l ~ ~ ~ l l ~ d l ~l l ~t~ ~ ~ A~/ l ~ W ~ ~ ~ l ldxldCd ¢ l /dde/ l ld~/ l ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ l ~ height. However, an increase in building height may be allowed subject to approval of a conditional use pemit. No accessory building shall exceed one and one-half stories or fifteen feet in height except as provided in Section 19.16.040. 19.22.160 Floor Area Ratio Construction of dwellings or any remodelin~ or additions to existing dwellings shall have a floor area ratio (FAR) which limits the maximum building area to 45% of the lot area. The floor area ratio calculation shall also include the square footage of patios, garages and other accessary structures present on the lot. For these purposes, an accessory structure is defined as any structure which rises 4 or more feet above finished ~rade. 19.22.170 Building Additions and Remodeling Any remodelin~ or additions to existing dwellings, which when added to the original buildin~ square footage e~uals 50% or ~reater than the original building permit allowed, shall require the buildin9 to compl~ with current zoning ordinance standards. Current buildin9 setback standards shall, however, appl~ only to new additions to an existin9 dwelling. Original building square footage shall be determined by submittal of dimensioned floor and site Blans by the a~_plicant. Chapter 19.24 R-1 Family Residence Zone 19.24.060 Height regulations. ~l l~l~ l tb~iil~ l ~ l ~t~l l t~¢¢~l~ l NCf~ l l~ l ~ l ~N l ~N l ~t~l ! Principal buildings may not exceed two and one-half stories or 28 feet in height, however, an increase in buildin9 height may be allowed subject tu approval of a conditional use pe~it. No accessory buildin9 shall exceed and one-half stories or fifteen feet in height except as provided in Sectio, 19.24.180 Floor Area Ratio See Section 19.22.160 for Floor Area Ratio requirements in the R-1 zones. 19.24.190 Building Additions and Remodeling See Section 19.22.170 for limitations to remodeling or additions to existing dwel 1 i ngs. Chapter 19.26 R-2 One and Two Family Residence Zone 19.26.060 Height Regulations ~ ~ ~ ~ l lil ~ l la~ tYald J l ~ ~ ~ l l ~ d l /4~ l l ~ ~ ~ l~ A tY l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l ldxl d d¢ ~ l /ddd l td~J/ l ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ l ! ~)~lll~)~l)llLll)))tl~l~ll~l)/))l))~ll~)Zl Principal buildings m~y not exceed two and one-half stories or 28 feet in height, however, an ~ncrease in building height ma~ be allowed subject to approval of a conditional use pemit. No accessory building shall exceed one and one-half stories or fifteen feet in height except as provided in Sectio, 19.16.040. 19.26.180 Floor Area Ratio See Section 19.22.160 for Floor Area Ratio requirements in the R-2 zones. 19.26.190 Building Additions and Remodelin~ See Section 19.22.170 for limitations to remodeling or additions to existing dwel 1 i ng s. -2- Chapter 19.28 P-C Planned Community Zone 19.48.140 P-C Zone - Residential Areas Not Subject to Design Review Construction of dwelling units or ~ny remodelin9 or additions to existin9 dwellings within residential areas in the P-C zone not subject to design review requirements must comply with the ~rovisions outlined in Sections 19.22.0b0, 19.22.16D and 19.22.17U of this ordinance. WPC 2518P -3- negative declaration PROJECT NAME: ZTA New Residential Construction PROJECT LOCATION: City-wide (except the Montgomery annexation area) PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista, Planning Department, 276 Fourth Ave., Chula Vista, CA 92010 CASE NO: IS-86-30 DATE: February 16, 1986 A. Project Setting This project is a zoning text amendment and would apply city-wide; except the Montgomery annexation area where it will apply only when City zoning replaces the existing County zoning. B. Project Description Chapter 19.04 Definitions 19.04.097 Floor Area Ratio (Residential) The numerical value obtained by dividing the total area of all the floors of a building or buildings included within the surrounding walls, by the total area of the premises. Chapter 19.22 R-E Residential Estates Zone 19.22.060 Height regulations. ~l /p/r~Inbi/Walll l~ ~l /sh~ l ~? /~d l ~l Hdd-~l l ~ ~l /drt l ~$ f~Y t ~ ~ Principal buildings may not exceed two and one-half stories or 24 feet in height. However, an increase in building height may be allowed subject tu approval of a conditional use permit. No accessory building shall exceed one and one-half stories or fifteen feet in height except as provided in Section 19.16.040. 19.22.160 Floor Area Ratio Construction of dwellings or any remodeling or additions to existing dwellings shall have a floor area ratio (FAR) which limits the maximum building area to 45% of the lot area. The floor area ratio calculation shall also include the square footage of patios, garages and other accessa~/ structures present on the lot. For these purposes, an accessor7 structure is defined as any structure which rises 4 or more feet above finished grade. city of chula vista planning department environmental review section ~2- 19.22.170 Building Additions and Remodeling Any remodeling or additions to existing dwellings, which when added to the original building square footage equals 50% or greater than the original building permit allowed, shall require the building to comply with current zoning ordinance standards. Current building setback standards shall, however, apply only to new additions to an existin~ dwelling. Drigina! building square footage shall be determined by submittal of dimensioned floo, and site plans by the applicant. Chapter 19.24 R-1 Family Residence Zone 19.24.060 Height regulations. ~l/Wrf~t~ll~l/s~ll~litWdl~l/oldd-~ll~$~l/ottl~t~$~ ~l lf~ l /ridi/gttt/ i /a~ l ~l l ~¢~ ~ l /~d~7~ l l~rtaq/V l /e~ l ~ l ~l l ~t~l ~ ~i ~ i ~i ~M~ ~ I~ I~$ ~I ~ ~ I~ ~ I ~N ~ ~Y I ~L Principal buildings may not exceed two and one-half stories or 24 feet in height, however, an increase in building height may be allowed subject to approval of a conditional use pemit. No accessory building shall exceed one and one-half stories or fifteen feet in height except as provided in Sectio. 19.16.040. 19.24.180 Floor Area Ratio See Section 19.22.160 for Floor Area Ratio requirements in the R-1 zones. 19.24.190 Buildin~ Additions and Remodeling See Section 19.22.170 for limitations to remodeling or additions to existing dwellings. Chapter 19.26 R-2 One and Two Family Residence Zone 19.26.060 Height Regulations ~ltddil,~,lWallll~l~ll~t~l,~dl~l~ll~l~ll:Nl~$~t~$~ Principal buildings may not exceed two and one-half stories or 24 feet in height, however, an increase in building height may be allowed subject approval of a conditional use permit. No accessory building shall exceed and one-half stories or fifteen feet in height except as provided in Sectio, 19.16.040. 19.26.180 Floor Area Ratio See Section 19.22.160 for Floor Area Ratio requirements in the R-2 zones. 19.26.190 Building Additions and Remodeling See Section 19.22.170 for limitations to remodeling or additions to existing dwellings. Chapter 19.28 P-C Planned Community Zone 19.48.140 P-C Zone - Residential Areas Not Subject to Design Review Construction of dwelling units or any remodeling or additions to existing dwellings within residential areas in the P-C zone not subject to design', review requirements must comply with the provisions outlined in Section~ 19.22.060, 19.22.160 and 19.22.170 of this ordinance. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The project is an amendment to the text of the zoning ordinance and is compatible with the General Plan. F. Findings of Insignificant Impact 1. The project involves a zoning text amendment; therefore, no natural or manmade resources will be affected. 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 not impacts anticipated to occur which could interact to create a substantial cumulative impact on the environment. 4. The proposed amendments will more stringently regulate height and bulk regulations in the R-E, R-l, R-2 and Planning Community zones and, therefore, any effect on people will be reduced. The definition of building additions and remodeling is being changed to assure compliance with current Code standards. '~4- G. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Mando Liuag, Associate Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Duane Bazzel, Assistant Planner Gene Grady, Building and Housing Department Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer 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. WPC 2552P EN 6 (Rev. 5/85) city of chula vista planning department environmental review section EN 6 (Rev. 12/82~