HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1986/11/05 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, November 5, 1986 - 5:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-87-SM: Consideration of
request to construct a new clubhouse and rearrange
the parking area at 88 'L' Street - San Diego Country
Club (continued)
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-87-A(M): Consideration to adjust zone boundary at
the southwest corner of Third Avenue and Orange Avenue,
between C-36 General Commercial and RU-29 Residential -
Bob Spriggs (continued)
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-87-12: Requests permission
to establish a recreational vehicle storage yard at
the northerly terminus of Trenton Avenue, between
Industrial Boulevard and Walnut Avenue - John Gardner
and Bill Gretler (continued)
4. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-87-10: Requests permission to increase
floor area ratio and allowable rear yard coverage at
59 'K' Street - Jack and Marla Kuta
5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-87-G: Consideration to prezone 3.01 acres
located at the southeast corner of Medical Center Drive
and Medical Center Court - Vista Hill Foundation
AGENDA -2- November 5, 1986
6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-87-D: Consideration to prezone approximately
111 acres located one-half mile east of the 1-805
freeway on the south side of Telegraph Canyon Road
and at the easterly terminus of East Naples Street -
Great American Development Company and City of
Chula Vista
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
OTHER BUSINESS: Election of Vice Chairman
COMMISSION COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT AT to the Regular Business Meeting of November 19, 1986
at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers
October 31, 1986
TO: Members of Planning Commission
FROM: George Krempl, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for Planning Commission Meeting of
November 5, 1986
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-87-5M: Request to demolish
existinq Country Club and build a new facility at
88 'L' Street - San Diego Country Club
Staff is requesting continuance on this item to the Planning Commission
meeting of November 19, 1986. The item must be heard and a recommendation
forwarded from the Montgomery Planning Committee prior to the Commission's
consideration. The Montgomery Planning Committee will hear the item on
November 5, 1986 as well at 7:00 p.m.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 5, 1986 Page 1
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ 87-A(M) - Adjust zone boundary at the southwest
corner of Third Avenue and Orange Avenue, between C-36
general commercial and RU-29 residential - Bob Spriggs
A. BACKGROUND
1. The applicant proposes to adjust the zone boundary which presently
divides a 4.43 acre parcel into two zones to match the proposed lot
line plotted in tentative parcel map TPM 86-19, which has been
conditionally approved for the property. The zone boundary between
the existing C-36 general commercial zone and RU-29 residential {29
dwellings per acre) would be relocated 12 feet west of its present
location.
2. An Initial Study, IS-87-11M of possible adverse environmental impacts
of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator
on September 17, 1986, who concluded that there would be no
significant environmental effects and recommended that the Negative
Declaration be adopted.
3. The Montgome~ Planning Committee at their meeting of October l,
1986, voted to recommend approval of the rezone request as presented
by staff, and as shown in Exhibit A of this report.
4. This item was automatically continued from the meeting of October 8
and October 22, 1986, due to lack of a quorem to consider the request.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts
and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-87-11M.
2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance
to adjust the zone boundary between the existing C-36 and RU-29 zone
for the 4.43 acre parcel located at the southwest corner of Third
Avenue and Orange Avenue, to the location coinciding with the
property line approved as part of TPM 86-19, as shown in Exhibit A of
this report.
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent zoning and land use.
North RS-7, C-36, RU-29 Single-family homes, commercial,
apartments
South RMH-IO Mobilehome park, utility easement
East C-36, RMH-IO Car lots, mobilehome park
West RU-15, S-94 Mobilehome park, utility easement,
residences
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 5, 1986 Page 2
Existing site characteristics.
The project site consists of 4.43 acres of property located at the
southwest corner of Third Avenue and Orange Avenue. A tentative parcel
map has been conditionally approved separating the western portion of the
property (3.480 acres) which contains a 124 unit apartment complex from
the eastern portion of the property (.96 acres) which is vacant. The
property is level, and contains a drainage culvert along the southern
boundary of the property.
General plan.
The proposed zone boundary adjustment has no effect on the compliance of
the affected zones with the General Plan designation of Thoroughfare
Commercial and High Density Residential for the property.
In terms of land use, the property under commercial zoning is vacant, and
the adjusted boundary will not encroach onto the area developed for
residential uses. Therefore, the proposed rezonin9 will not adversely
affect or reduce the property's compliance with the Chula Vista General
Plan.
D. ANALYSIS
Prior to the last General Plan Amendment completed by the County of San
Diego for the Montgomery Area on May 15, 1985, the subject property was
split into two zones. The western portion of the lot was zoned RC, a
residential/commercial zone allowing residential densities of up to 40
dwellings per acre, while the eastern portion of the lot was zoned C-36
General Commercial. The applicant began construction of a 124-unit
apartment complex situated on the western portion of the lot, with the
intention of constructing a convenience commercial center on the eastern
portion of the lot. The apartment project was designed using a zone
boundary located 230 feet from centerline of Third Avenue.
Upon completion of the last General Plan Amendment, the property was zoned
RU-29 and C-36; the boundary between the two zones remained at its
previous location.
Upon annexation to the City of Chula Vista, a tentative parcel map was
filed in order to separate the property into two lots so that commercial
uses could be pursued on that portion of the property zoned C-36. It was
discovered at that time that the zone boundary separating the RU-29 and
C-36 zone is located 242 feet from the centerline of Third Avenue, not 230
feet as the applicant originally thought.
The applicant is requesting the zone boundary adjustment to conform with
the existing as-built location of the apartment complex. After review of
the applicant's request and the zoning hi story of the property, staff is
recommending approval of the zone boundary adjustment. The adjustment is
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 5, 1986 Page 3
minor in nature, would move the boundary 12 feet to align with the
proposed property line separating the two parcels, and would not encroach
into the existing apartment use.
At this time there is no specific commercial project proposed.
Consideration of public improvements and public safety requirements will
be done through the Design Review process when a specific commercial
proposal is brought forward.
WPC 3162P
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 5, 1986 Page 1
3. PUBLIC HEARI~IG: Conditional Use Permit PCC-87-12; request to establish
recreational vehicle storage yard at the northerly
teminus of Trenton Avenue between Industrial
Boulevard and Walnut Avenue - John Gardner & Bill
Gretler (continued)
A. BACKGROUND
The proposal is to establish a recreational vehicle storage yard on
approximately 3.3 acres within the SDG&E right-of-way at the northerly
terminus of Trenton Avenue between Industrial Boulevard and Walnut Avenue
in the R-3 zone.
The matter was continued from the meeting of October 22, 1986, because a
possible conflict of interest resulted in the lack of a quorum for this
item.
An Initial Study, IS-87-17, of possible adverse environmental impacts of
the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on
October 10, 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-87-17.
2. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a
motion to approve the request, PCC-87-12, to establish a recreational
vehicle storage yard on 3.3 acres at the northerly terminus of
Trenton Avenue subject to the following conditions:
a. Hours of operation shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Monday through Thursday, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Friday
through Sunday. On-site security shall be provided 24 hours a
day. The security lighting system shall be located and/or
screened to avoid glare onto adjacent residential properties.
b. Items eligible for storage without prior written permission of
the Director of Planning shall be limited to recreational
vehicles, automobiles, trucks, boats, trailers, and
motorcycles. No stored item shall exceed 13'6" in height at its
highest point. All items shall be in sound operating condition,
and no on-site repair of stored items shall be allowed.
c. Paving shall conform to City standards for a permanent surface.
d. The office structure shall maintain a 10 foot separation from
adjacent structures. The design and details of the office
structure shall be subject to site plan and architectural review
and approval.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 5, 1986 Page 2
e. At least ten of the lO'x20' spaces adjacent to the office
building shall be designated for temporary customer parking.
f. A landscape and irrigation plan to include the public parkway on
Industrial Blvd. fronting the site, shall be submitted for
review and approval by the City Landscape Architect,
g. A detailed fencing plan shall be submitted for all property
lines, including a decorative fencing scheme for the portion of
the southerly property line visible from Trenton Avenue and
Industrial Blvd. The decorative treatment shall be consistent
with that required by the Code for exterior side yards.
h. A turn-around for fire apparatus and an additional standpipe
shall be provided subject to review and approval of the Fire
Marshal. The access drive shall be widened to 24 feet.
i. The Zoning Administrator shall approve the final site plan
subject to providing adequate parking and access to the
residential lots located on Trenton Avenue.
j. Failure to comply with these conditions or complaints filed
concerning the operation will cause the application to be
reviewed by the Planning Commission for possible revocation or
the addition of conditions after conducting a public hearing.
k. This permit shall be valid for a period of $ years subject to
two 5-year extensions by the Planning Commission without a
hearing.
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent zoning and land use
North: MHP Mobile home park
South: R-3 Single/multiple family
East: I-L-P Vacant
West: I-L-P RV storage yard
Existing site characteristics
The site consists of approximately 3.3 vacant acres within the SDG&E
transmission line right-of-way. The property has over 400 feet of
frontage on the westerly side of Industrial Blvd. just to the north of
Palomar Street, and extends in a northwesterly direction to a point midway
between Walnut and Trenton Avenues. An existing RV storage facility
occupies the remainder of the SDG&E right-of-way between this site and the
I-5 freeway.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 5, 1986 Page 3
Proposed use
The proposal involves paving and fencing the site for the storage of
recreational vehicles and related items. The lot would be stripped for a
total of 252 spaces (71-10'x20', 131-10'x30', and 50-10'x40'), with access
to the site from Industrial Blvd. A small prefabricated office building
along with customer parking would be located on the southerly portion of
the property. The facility would be open 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday
through Thursday, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Friday through Sunday. The
application states that security shall be provided on-site 24 hours daily.
The site would be enclosed with 8-foot high solid wood fencing (dog eared
cedar is called out for the southerly property line), with a 13'6" maximum
height limit for stored items. A 15 foot wide landscape planting buffer
would be established along the entire Industrial Blvd. frontage, and five
tree wells are shown on the inboard side of the southerly fence line in
order to eventually soften the 8 foot fencing exposed to Trenton Avenue.
Items eligible for storage would be limited to recreational vehicles,
automobiles, trucks, boats, trailers, and motorcycles. Two low pressure
sodium vapor lamps would be used to illuminate the sight at night; one in
the central portion of the property, and one in the vicinity of the office
building. A 16 foot high, 32 sq. ft. freestanding identification sign
would be placed in the landscape planter adjacent to Industrial Blvd.
Review Process
This application is the first to be processed under the new ordinance
treating RV storage yards as an "unclassified use" subject to location in
any zone upon the approval of a conditional use permit. This ordinance
requires each applicant to address several site development issues, and
also requires the Commission to determine on a case-by-case basis if a
particular facility represents a "permanent" or "interim" use. If a
storage facility is classified as an interim use of land, it is subject to
annual review and an initial five-year approval period with extensions
subject to rehearing before the Commission.
D. ANALYSIS
~e believe the location of the site, within the SDG&E right-of-way and
adjacent to an existing RV storage facility, and within a transition area
surrounded by light industrial, multiple family and mobile home park
development and zoning patterns makes it suitable for the use. Although
RV storage yards can have an imposing visual impact if not properly
screened, they are generally passive operations in terms of noise and
traffic. Thus, with proper screening, this facility should coexist
comfortably with the adjacent residential and light industrial uses. For
these same reasons, we recommend the Commission consider this a long-term
rather than an interim use of the land, and thus the facility would not be
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 5, 1986 Page 4
subject to the review and rehearing requirements noted above. However, in
order in insure that the long term land use remains compatible with the
area. A 5-year limit with extensions authorized by the Planning
Commission is proposed.
The application has addressed all of the required issues (which are
summarized above under "Proposed Use") with the exception of the type of
paving proposed for the lot. A condition of approval has been recommended
to require a surface conforming with the permanent pavement standards of
the City.
In regard to the proposed list of eligible storage items, this seems to be
a rather typical combination of items stored in such facilities. The keys
b~ing both the height limit of 13'6" so as not to defeat the screening
measures, and the provision of a substantial number of larger storage
spaces to serve the need to accommodate the larger recreational vehicles
which cannot be conveniently stored on residential properties. In the
present case, 52% of the spaces are lO'x30' and 20% of the spaces are
lO'x40', while 28% of the spaces are dimensioned for an automobile at
lO'x20'. A condition of approval has been recommended which would require
all stored items to be in operating condition with no Oh"site repair
activities allowed.
The office structure should be relocated so as to provide at least a 10
ft. separation from the dwelling immediately to the south. Also, several
of the parking spaces to the west of the office should be reserved and
designated for temporary customer parking. These items, as well as a
detailed landscaping and irrigation program for on-site areas and the
parkway along Industrial Blvd., have been incorporated into the
recommended conditions of approval.
It is not totally clear from the plans as to what type of solid wood
fencing is proposed along the northerly and easterly property lines.
Also, some provision should be made for decorative fencing along that
portion of the southerly property line exposed to the Trenton Avenue
public right-of-way and along Industrial Blvd. A fence plan, including a
decorative treatment (consistent with that required by Code for exterior
side yards) for the portion of the southerly property line exposed to
Trenton Avenue and Industrial Blvd. is recommended for staff review and
approval.
The Fi re Department has reviewed the plans and has indicated that an
approved turn-around for fi re apparatus will be required at the
northwesterly portion of the site, and an additional standpipe will be
required in the central portion of their property. The Code also requires
that two-way access drives be a minimum width of 24 feet rather than the
20 foot driveway indicated on the plans. These items can be addressed
prior to the issuance of a development permit.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 5, 1986 Page 5
One significant access issue has surfaced involving three lots under a
single ownership on the west side of Trenton. The properties have been
using a portion of the SDG&E property for parking and/or access for a
number of years. The proposed site layout would virtually eliminate the
present residential parking, therefore, an alternative solution must be
proposed. The applicant, SDG&E and the effected property owner will work
on a mutually agreeable solution, and a condition of approval has been
recommended giving the Zoning Administrator final approval over the
resulting plan modifications.
Accordingly, with the conditions noted above, we recommend approval of
PCC-87-12 based on the following findings.
E. FINDINGS
1. That the proposed use at the location is necessa~ or desirable to
provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being
of the neighborhood or the community.
An RV storage facility at this location will provide a convenience to
area residents requiring an off-site storage area for recreational
vehicles. There appears to be a significant demand for RV storage
areas as evidenced by the lack of vacancies in existing facilities.
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 property is located on the SDG&E right-of-way adjacent to an
existing RV storage facility. With proper visual screening as has
been ensured in this case, the facility will not have a detrimental
impact on adjacent residential and light industrial areas.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and
conditions specified in the code for such use.
Compliance with all applicable conditions and regulations will be
required prior to the issuance of permits to develop the property.
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.
Unclassified uses such as RV storage yards may be considered for
location within any plan designation of zone upon the issuance of a
conditional use permit.
WPC 3253P
L
I
I
I
I
"~,~c"NORTH ~
negative declaration
PROJECT NAHE: Toy Storage
PROJECT LOCATION: t~orth of Palomar Street, west of Industrial Blvd., within
the SDG&E transmission line corridor
PROJECT APPLICANT: John W. Gardner and William Gretler, 1140 Walnut Avenue,
Chula Vista, CA
CASE NO: IS-87-17 DATE: October lC, 1986
A. Project Setting
The project site involves approximately 3.3 acres of land presently within
the SDG&~ transmission line corridor located north of Palomar Street and
west of Industrial Blvd. The property is presently vacant with one
transmission line tower located on it. Adjacent land uses consist of a
mobilehome park to the north, single family dwellings to the south, a
recreational vehicle storage yard to the west and Industrial Blvd. to the
east.
B. Project Description
The project consists of the paving of 3.3 acres of property for the
storage of recreation vehicles, cars, trucks, and boats. A commercial
coach will be provided at the southeast corner of the site as the office.
C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans
The proposed RV storage yard will require the approval of a conditional
use permit by the Planning Commission and is compatible with the General
Plan.
D. identification of Environmental Effects
1. Transportation
The project will result in approximately 504 vehicle trips per day
but no change in the current level of service (LOS "A") on Industrial
Blvd. The City's Traffic Engineer indicates that as a standard
development requirement the applicant will be required to dedicate 2
feet of street right-of-way along Industrial Blvd. No environmental
mitigation measures will be required.
2. Aesthetics
As a standard development requirement, all storage lot lighting shall
be shielded from residential areas and public right-of-ways. The
applicant proposes to install an 8-ft. high wood fence adjacent to
residential areas on the north and south side of the project
visually screen storage items.
city of chula vista planning department CF~'OF
environmental review section. CHULAVIErAr,'
3. Drainage
Standard engineering requirements will ensure that adequate drainage
facilities are installed. No significant drainage impacts are
anticipated.
E. Findings of Insignificant Impact
1. There are no significant natural or manmade resources located that
will be affected by project implementation.
2. The proposed conditional use permit is conformance with the General
Plan and will not achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term
environmental goals.
3. No impacts are anticipated to interact and cause a cumulative effect
on the environment.
4. The RV storage yard will not result in significant hazards to human
beings.
G. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Mando Liuag, Associate Planner
Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer
Duane Bazzel, Associate Planner
Len Hansell, Building and Nousing Department
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer
Applicant's Agent: James Algert, Applicant's Engineer
2. Documents
IS-85-3, RV Storage Nalnut Avenue
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.
O~NTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
WPC 3252P
EN 6 (Rev. 5/85)
city of chula vista planning department CI~OF
environmental review section CHU[.A VJ~'TA~
EN 6 (Rev. 12/82)
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATE51ENT
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN O~'NERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS
WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING
COMMISSION 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.
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
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.
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. }lave 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,
~ 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 bf~-i~n~/date~ ~ ~ ~
WPC 0701P
A-110 Print or type name of applicant
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 5, 1986 Page 1
4. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-87-10; request to increase floor area
ratio and allowable rear yard coverage at 59 "K"
Street - Jack and Marla Kuta
A. BACKGROUND
1. This item involves a request to increase the floor area ratio from
46% to 54% and the allowable rear yard coverage from 400 sq. ft. to
541 sq. ft. in order to construct a family room, master bedroom
extension, and detached garage at 59 "K" Street in the R-1 zone.
2. The project is exempt from environmental review as a Class l(e)
exemption.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a motion to deny ZAV-87-10.
C. nlSCUSSIO~
Adjacent zoning and land use.
North R-1 Single family dwelling
South R-1 Single family dwelling
East R-1 Single family dwelling
West R-1 Single family dwelling
Existing site characteristics.
The lot in question is 50 feet wide and 160 feet in depth, for a total
area of 8,000 sq. ft. The existing two-story dwelling contains 3,109 sq.
ft. of floor area, and an existing detached garage contains an additional
540 sq. ft. for a total floor area of 3,649 sq. ft.
Proposed request.
The request is to add a first floor family room, extend the second floor
master bedroom, and make other minor modifications which together would
add 543 sq. ft. of floor area to the dwelling. In addition, a new 695 sq.
ft. garage/workroom would be constructed on the rear of the lot and the
existing 540 sq. ft. garage would be removed to make way for an extended
driveway and pool/patio area. The size difference between the new and
existing §arage would add an additional 155 sq. ft. of floor area.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 5, 1986 Page 2
The dwelling additions and the new, larger garage would increase the floor
area from the existing 3,649 sq. ft. (46% FAR) to 4,347 sq. ft. (54%
FAR). The Code limits the FAR for single family lots to 45%, which would
translate to 3,600 sq. ft. of floor area for this 8,000 sq. ft. lot.
Furthermore, the new garage would occupy 541 sq. ft. of the required rear
yard setback area, while the Code limits the coverage within this area to
400 sq. ft.
D. ANALYSIS
The City has used a floor area ratio (FAR) standard since May of this
year. The FAR limits a dwelling to a reasonable bulk and scale relative
to the size of the lot. In the case of the R-1 zone, the FAR of 45% sets
an ultimate limit to the amount of square footage of floor area which may
be constructed to 45% of the size of the lot. This standard, along with
height and setback restrictions, is designed to allow ample interior
residential living space, while at the same time limiting the size and
location of structures consistent with the light, air, privacy, and open
space standards and aesthetic values which have come to be expected in R-1
single-family residential living environments.
Section 19.14.140 of the Municipal Code provides, in part, that "The
granting of a variance is...to provide a reasonable use for a parcel of
n~operty having unique characteristics by virtue of its size, location,
design or topographical features, and its relationship to adjacent or
surrounding properties and developments. The purpose of the variance is
to bring a particular parcel up to parity with other property in the same
zone and vicinity insofar as a reasonable use is concerned, and it is not
to grant any special privilege or concession not enjoyed by other
properties in the same zone and vicinity..."
Since the floor area limitation imposed by the FAR is solely based on the
square footage of a particular lot, the only apparent "unique
characteristic" or "hardship" which would justify a variance would be a
substandard sized lot in comparison to other lots in the same zone and
vicinity.
In the present case, the subject 8,000 sq. ft. lot exceeds the City's
7,000 sq.ft, standard for R-1 lots by 1,000 sq. ft. Although it is
smaller than several other lots in the immediate vicinity, it shares this
distinction with five other lots on the same block face and thus is not
unique in this regard. Also, the 45% FAR allows for a total floor area of
3,600 sq. ft., which would appear to provide for the reasonable use of a
single family parcel of this size (while the applicant's proposal calls
for 4,347 sq. ft.). Finally, with these factors in mind, the very purpose
in using a "ratio" is to relate the bulk of structures to the variations
in single family lot size typically encountered in the City.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 5, 1986 Page 3
Thus, it is our conclusion that there is nothing unique about the subject
parcel that presents a hardship or prevents the reasonable use of the
property under the strict application of the R-1 zone FAR restriction and
the granting of the variance would represent a special privilege not
enjoyed by other properties in the same zone and vicinity. For this
reason, we recommend denial of the request.
The companion request to increase the allowable rear yard coverage from
400 sq. ft. to §41 sq. ft. for the construction of a new detached garage
on the rear of the lot would perhaps be supportable if it did not in
itself violate the 45% FAR.
One of the primary reasons for the coverage limitation is to retain a
:sable rear yard area, and this would not present a problem on this deep
lot. However, even with no expansion of the dwelling and the removal of
the existing garage, no more than 491 sq. ft. could be added to the
existing dwelling floor area of 3,109 sq. ft. and still remain within the
45% FAR limitation of 3,600 sq. ft. The proposed garage/workroom, on the
other hand, contains 695 sq. ft. of floor area, and would result in an FAR
of 48%.
If the new garage was downsized to conform with the FAR, there would be no
need for a variance, and the garage along with the pool and patio area
could go forward simply with the issuance of a building permit.
For the Commission's information, the following are the facts which must
be found in order grant a variance:
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.
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.
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.
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.
WPC 3288P
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 5, 1986 Page 1
5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-87-G Consideration to prezone approximately 3
acres of land located at the southeast corner of
Medical Center Drive and Medical Center Court,
presently RS-4 County single family residential to be
prezoned to C-O-P Administrative and Professional with
a precise plan - Vista Hill Foundation
A. BACKGROUND
The applicant will be filing an application with the Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCO) to annex the subject property located in the
County of San Diego and within the boundaries of the Sphere of Influence
of the City of Chula Vista sometime after the prezoning is approved by the
City. LAFCO requires the area to be prezoned before an annexation
application may be processed and considered.
An Initial Study IS-87-27, a review of the possible adverse environmental
impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review
Coordinator on October 24, 1986, and concluded that there would be no
significant environmental effects and issued the Negative Declaration.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Find that the project will have no significant environmental impacts
and adopt the Negative Declaration issued for IS-87-27.
2. Adopt a motion recommending that City Council enact an ordinance to
prezone the subject 3.01 acres of property located at the southeast
corner of Medical Center Drive and Medical Center Court to C-O-P as
indicated on Exhibit A. Said prezoning shall be subject to:
a. Dedication and improvement of all necessary public improvements
as determined by the City Engineer.
b. The applicant shall sign an agreement precluding the protest of
any assessment district formed for the purpose of participation
in any off-site public improvements as determined by the City
Engineer.
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent zoning and land use.
I~mediately northwest and south of the subject property is R-S-4 County
and presently vacant. Immediately to the east is an area zoned R-1-H with
a conditional use permit granted for psychiatric hospital.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 5, 1986 Page 2
Existing site characteristics.
The 3.01 acres in question are located on the east side of the proposed
extension of Medical Center Drive directly abutting the south side of
Medical Center Court. The property has rather gentle rolling topography
which would not preclude access from either Medical Center Court or the
extension of Medical Center Drive. The site has been cultivated in the
past and is presently vacant. The hillside overlay zone applied to the
properties immediately to the east has been modified through the
conditional use permit process utilized on those properties. In each
instance, specific site plans were approved to address grading issues with
minimal retention of natural areas.
Compatibility with zoning and plans.
The General Plan Land Use Element depicts the general area for
professional and administrative office use which covers properties in the
vicinity of the Chula Vista Community Hospital. Therefore, the proposed
C-O-P zoning would be in conformance with the General Plan. Of the 30
acres immediately east of the subject property, which have been developed
over the years with hospital office and nursing facilities is for the most
part (80%) zoned R-l-H, with the remaining area zoned C-O-P. The
long-range plan would be to review this entire area for consideration of a
C-O-P category to more closely relate to the development that is now
transpired. Extending the C-O zoning to Medical Center Drive represents a
natural boundary to the west. The termination at this point of the
proposed C-O zoning, a little over 200 feet south of Medical Center Court,
is uncertain so far as long-range planning is concerned since the area
immediately to the south and to the west are uncommitted so far as
development plans. The size of the parcel and the depth of the commercial
zoning will allow the applicant's to proceed with a design for a 40,000
sq. ft. medical office structure which is the anticipated land use at this
time.
D. ANALYSIS
It is recommended that the area be prezoned to C-O-P to allow for the
expansion of the medical facilities that are now well established in the
30 acres immediately to the east of the subject property. The ultimate
size of the medical complex for this area is uncertain and will require
further study with the future development plans for the area to the south
and east of the existing hospital. It is anticipated that the extension
of Palomar Street to the south will likely form the ultimate southerly
boundary for the medical land uses.
WPC 3290P
Courtly of Son D/ego
City of Chulo Vista
CHULA VISTA
WOODS VACANT JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
SUBDIVISION (SITE)
Vac ! V~c
§
PROJECT -i
AREA I
/J~fo fiji/
CHULA VISTA m
COMMUNITY Im
!
HOSPITAL
~4ed
dR-J) ~z~ ~,~.~ m ~,e~o,e
Prezone FociJify
Offices of Chu/,~ !
Count~ of San
VISTA HILL FOUND~I~ '
C~N
EXHIBIT 'A'
.~AN DIEGO COUNTY
DEPAF1TMENT OF LAIq3 USE AND ENVIFCAIMENTAL RECJ. LATICAI
PLAT
· t -- · (_l~nlt ,d Enterprise, s, Inc, Vista Hill Foundation
: ~ ~ STREETS WERE DEdICATeD
. .' i ', . . . ~ O~~~f~~ ~RTION o 34Z0 CAMINO DEL RIO N. ,
,.--"- '. , E 641-010-14 STE 100, SAN DIEGO, CA
. ~ ~ USE:VACANT~ ~2108: 563- 1770
.. - ,. n~APPROX 35' MIN.
.............. C~ ~ .~ ~ / 7~41-olo-~
PROPERS.
" .... ':';-' '--" ' :~'
negative declaration
PROJ£~T N~4E: Vista Hill Medical Office Building
PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast Corner Medical Center Drive & Medical Center Court
PROJECT APPLICANT: Vista Hill Foundation
3420 Camino Del Rio North
San Diego, CA 92108
CASE NO: IS-87-27 DATE: October 24, 1986
A. Project Setting
The project involves about 3 acres located just to the west of the
existing Vista Hill facility located on Medical Center Court. The
property has rolling topography which should not preclude access from
either Medical Center Court or the extension of Medical Center Drive along
the western side of the property. The site has been used for agricultural
purposes in the past and is void of any biological or archaeological
resources. Expensive soils are expected to be present but any adverse
effects can be mitigated during the grading of the property. The La
Nacion earthquake fault zone to the east of the property near Chula Vista
Community Hospital is not anticipated to effect the development of this
site.
B. Project Description
T~ere are two phases involved with this project. The first is to prezone
the property C-O-P (Commercial Office subject to a Precise Plan) and annex
the site to the City of Chula Vista. The second phase will be the
construction of a 40,000 sq. ft. medical office building with about 29,700
sq. ft. of usable area and a 2,300 sq. ft. pharmacy. About 57 employees
and 576 patients per day are anticipated. No development plans are
available at this time. Prior to consideration of any plans for the
development of this property by the Design Review Committee this negative
declaration will be reviewed for adequacy. The precise plan for the
development of this property will include grading and drainage plans.
C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans
The General Plan Land Use Element depicts professional and administrative
office uses in the vicinity of Chula Vista Community Hospital. The
proposed C-O-P prezoning would be in conformance with this policy of the
General Plan.
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
In accordance with the Initial Study on this project there will be no
significant environmental impacts and no mitigation is required.
city of chula vista planning department CIIYOF
environmental review section_CHUL~
E. Findings of Insignificant Impact
1. The project site has been used for agricultural purposes and is
therefore void of any significant biological or archaeological
resources.
2. Expansive soils are known to be present but can be adequately treated
during grading of the property. The La Nacion earthquake fault zone
is located to the east of the property. Geology and Soils reports
are being prepared which will assure knowledge of any splinter faults
prior to the preparation of a precise plan.
3. All utilities and roads are adequate to serve the proposed project.
There will be no major extension of public services that could be
growth inducing.
4. The proposal conforms to the General Plan and will not achieve any
short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals
F. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Mando Liuag, Associate Planner
Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer
Duane Bazzel, Associate Planner
Bill Wheeler, Building and Housing Department
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer
Applicant's Agent: The Terry Group
Mr. David Terry
3412 Florida Street
San Diego, CA 92104
2. Documents
Municipal Code Chula Vista; General Plan Chula Vista;
Environmental Impact Report, Chula Vista Sphere of Influence;
IS-76-17; IS-83-17; EIR-76-6; EIR-81-8
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.
REVIEW COORDINATOR
WPC O175P/3277P
EN 6 (Rev. 5/85)
city of chula vista planning department CI~YOF
environmental review section CHUL~ VI~'A.
EN 6 (Rev. 12/82)
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 5, 1986 Page 1
6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-87-D - Consideration to prezone approximately lll
acres located one-half mile east of the 1-805 freeway
on the south side of Telegraph Canyon Road and at the
easterly terminus of East Naples Street Great
American Development Company and City of Chula Vista
A. BACKGROUND
l. This item involves the prezoning of three contiguous areas
constituting approximately lll acres:
The first area involves approximately lO0 acres located one-half mile
east of the 1-805 freeway on the south side of Telegraph Canyon Road
and bisected by Medical Center Drive. The request for this area,
filed by Great American Development Company, is for prezoning from
RS4 (County: single family residential/4 dwelling units per acre) to
R-l-P-4 (City: single family residential/precise plan/4 dwelling
units per acre).
The City has included within this public hearing the consideration of
prezoning two additional areas contiguous to the lO0 acres. The
first contiguous area involves approximately 10 acres located
directly to the northeast of the easterly terminus of East Naples
Street proposed for prezoning from RS4 (County: single family
residential/4 dwelling units per acre) to R-l-lO (City: single
family residential/lO,O00 sq. ft. minimum lot size). The second
contiguous area consists of 1.32 acres located adjacent to Telegraph
Canyon Road and directly to the northeast of the lO acre area and is
proposed for prezoning from RS4 (County: single family residential/4
dwelling units per acre) to R-1-P-4 {City: single family
residential/precise plan/4 dwelling units per acre).
2. An Initial Study, IS-87-19, of possible adverse environmental impacts
of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator
on October 24, 1986, who concluded that there would be no significant
environmental effects and recommended that the Negative Declaration
be adopted.
B. RECOMMENDATION
l. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts
and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-87-19.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 5, 1986 Page 2
2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance
to prezone approximately 111 acres from County RS4 to City R-l-P-4
and R-l-lO as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto.
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent zoning and land use.
North R-l-H, C-O-P & P-C Elks Club, Archway Inn and single
family dwellings
South R-1-H Single family dwellings (under
construction), Community Hospital
medical complex and vacant land
East R-1-H and P-C Vacant land and single family
dwellings
West R-1 Greg Rogers Park/School, church
and single family dwellings
Existing site characteristics.
The acreage is primarily vacant, sloping terrain with the exception of the
lO-acre area at the easterly terminus of E. Naples Street which contains
eight (8) single family dwellings. The eastern portion of the property is
~lsected by Medical Center Drive, and the SDG&E transmission line
right-of-way crosses the site from southwest to northeast. Access to the
property can be gained from Telegraph Canyon Road via Medical Center Drive
and East Naples Street.
General plan.
The proposed prezoning designations of R-l-P-4 and R-l-lO both conform
with the General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential/4-12
dwelling units per acre.
D. ANALYSIS
The proposed prezoning is a prerequisite for the annexation of the area to
the City of Chula Vista. The acreage is a County "island" surrounded by
incorporated City territory.
The prezoning designations of R-l-P-4 and R-l-lO both coincide with the
existing County zoning of RS4, all of which call for single family
residential development at 4 dwelling units per acre. The lO-acre area
has been singled out for R-l-lO zoning (10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size,
or 4 dwelling units per acre based upon 43,560 sq. ft. in an acre) in
order to maintain consistency but avoid a precise plan requirement for
this already developed area.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 5, 1986 Page 3
Great American Development Company intends to follow the prezoning and
annexation with a precise plan for a residential development on their lO0
acres. This may involve a later request for some adjustment to the zoning
depending on the resulting plan. In any case, the precise plan and any
further zoning action would require review and approval by the Commission
and Council.
Since the prezoning proposals are to facilitate a change in jurisdiction
that does not involve a change in land use or density, we recommend
approval of the requests.
WPC 7291P
3unty)
County)
ated)
,
/
PROJECT ~ARE/~,"
!
PR R-S-7 (County)
~.e.r. ic an]~'
; ;
negative declaration
PROJECT NAME: Rancho Del Sur, Prezoning and Annexation
PROJECT LOCATION: South side of Telegraph Canyon Road, East of Greg Rogers
Elementary School and Park
PROJECT APPLICANT: Great American Development Company 600 B Street, Suite 700
San Diego, CA 92101
CASE NO: IS-87-19 DATE: October 24, 1986
A. Project Setting
The projedt site is located south of Telegraph Canyon Road and to the east
of Greg Rogers Park and school. The eastern portion of the project site
is bisected by Medical Center Drive. The SDG&E transmission line easement
also crosses the site.
On the eastern portion of the property the La Nacion earthquake fault zone
crosses through the site. Expansive soils are also known to exist in the
general area of the project.
There are several archeological sites' on the property which are
non-significant and do not require mitigation. Biological resources are
also present; any evaluation of the significance of project impacts cannot
be done at this time due to the lack of specific development proposals.
Access to the property can be gained from Telegraph 'Canyon Road via
Medical Center Drive and East Naples Street.
B. Project Description
This project involves the prezoning and annexation of the subject property
to the City of Chula Vista. The prezoning proposal is to a density that
coincides with the existing County zoning. This is a change in
~brisdictions that does not involve a change in density. The existing
County zoning is RS-4 (4 du/ac); the proposed prezoning is R-l-P-4 (4
du/ac). Although the density will remain the same, there is the
additional control of the precise plan process.
There are various constraints on the property. However, without precise
development plans, impacts cannot be evaluated. The requirement for
further review of the project through the precise plan requirement will
insure further environmental analysis of potential impacts.
city of chula vista planning department CI'IYOF
environmental review section _CHULA VISTA.r
C. Compatibility with Zonin9 and Plans
The project, at 4 dwelling units per acre, conforms to the General Plan
designation of 4-12 dwelling units per acre.
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
Although there are potential environmental effects, they cannot be
evaluated at this time because there is no specific development proposal.
The project does allow only the intensity of land use which would
currently be permitted under existing County zoning. The project requires
future discretionary actions on more specific plans which will require the
preparation of an environmental impact report.
E. Findings of Insignificant Impact
1. Although the project site does involve resources and hazards which
could result in potentially significant impacts, there is
insufficient detail regarding the project to evaluate these effects.
It is too early in the planning process to accurately evaluate
impacts and mitigation measures.
2. Because the proposed prezoning is very similar to the current County
zoning, there will be no growth inducing impacts because of the
proposed prezoning.
3. The proposal conforms to the General Plan and therefore there will be
no attainment of short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term
environmental goals.
4. Much of the property has been used for agricultural purposes in the
past and therefore the significance of many resources has been
reduced.
G. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Mando Liuag, Associate Planner
Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer
Duane Bazzel, Associate Planner
Bill Wheeler, Building and Housing Department
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer
Applicant's Agent: Mr. John Ochsner
Great American Development Company
-3-
2. Documents
Municipal Code
General Plan
Archaeological Survey Dated August 18, 1986, prepared by TMI
Environmental Serv.
Traffic Study dated October 1986, prepared by Basmaciyan-Darnell
IS-76-17
EIR-76-6
EIR-81-8
IS-83-1 7
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.
REVIEW COORDINATOR
WPC O175P/3279P
EN 6 (Rev. 5/85)
city of chula vista planning department CI~OF
environmental review section CHUNVi~A
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS
I~HICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING
CO~MISSION 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.
Great American Development Company Mathew Ronald Loonin
William Patrick Kruer Jack A. Guttman
George Thomas Kruer John W. Gardner, Jr.
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
Great American Development Company Mathew Ronald Loonin
William Patrick Kruer Jack A. Guttman
George Thomas Kruer John W. Gardner, Jr.
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.
Great American First $~vinqs Bank
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,
social 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.)~//..~
9/23/86
~~f'6&6'f app ] ica n t/d at ~
WPC 0701P c-~ .JOHN OCHSNER
A-110 Print or type name of applicant