Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1988/10/12 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, October 12, 1988 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of August 24, 1988 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed five minutes. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: DRC-82-7: First International Bank appeal on signs from Design Review Committee approval for First International Bank, 318 Fourth Avenue 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-89-6: California Custom Truck Shell, 777 Broadway, Appeal of Revocation of Zoning Permit 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-89-2 and P-89-1: Consideration of tentative subdivision map and precise plan for Rancho del Rey, Unit 11b, Chula Vista Tract 89-2 Rancho del Rey Partnership 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-89-5: Request to create substandard parking area at 579 Casselman Street - Jose Isabal 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-88-21: Consideration of an amendment to the Municipal Code establishing standards and require- ments for the accessory use of churches as temporary shelters for the homeless - City initiated -2- October 12, 1988 AGENDA ................ DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT to the Study Session Meeting of October 19, 1988 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms #2 and 3 City Planning Commission Page 1 Agenda Item for Meeting of October 12, 1988 1. PUBLIC HEARING: First International Bank appeal on signs from Design Review Committee approval for First International Bank, 318 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista 92010 A. BACKGROUND On August 18, 1988, the Design Review Committee approved a revised sign program for the First International Bank located at 318 Fourth Avenue requiring that the monument signs utilize a light tan background with blue letters and required the proposed wall mounted sign to be located on the easterly elevation to utilize individual unlit cutout letters. The applicant, First International Bank, filed an appeal on the 31st of August indicating their wish to retain a white background which is presently utilized on the monument program citing the fact that the eggshell or tan background would be contradictory to the Bank's colors. In addition, the bank was proposing a cabinet type wall sign for the east elevation. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review Class ll(a). B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the monument signs with the white background as they are presently constructed. 2. Authorize a wall-mounted sign utilizing individual letters with the logo not to exceed 18" in height and allow for the lighting of said sign. (Design subject to Planning Director's approval.) C. DISCUSSION located at The applicant has a two-story 18,000 sq. ft. plus bank building. F,, 318 Fourth Avenue with access via Fourth Avenue as well as Street. The building is located within a commercial office zone and is also encumbered with the Civic Center design control area designation. The Design Review Committee first considered and approved the bank building as well as the sign program in March 1982. Approval of the sign program included the authorization of two monument signs, one located on Fourth Avenue and one on "F" Street, as well as smaller directional signs to identify the bank and access to it. The color scheme of the signs under C a roval featured a brown background with light-colored the original. DR P~ ..... ~+~ the Snanish building design and the letters which were 3n Keep~.~ w,~, ~ colors utilized on the building. Later when First International acquired the bank, they proceeded to illegally change the sign faces without City approval. The applicants were notified of the violation whereupon a sign program was submitted for Design Review consideration. On May 19, 1988, the Design Review Committee considered a revised sign program for First International Bank which featured a white background with blue letters with a proposal to paint the outside cabinets and base in a color to match the existing building. It should be pointed out at that time that the City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 12, 1988 Page 2 base of the sign as well as the cabinetry was still in a royal blue color rather than one that matched the building. The applicant was also requesting an additional wall-mounted cabinet sign to be located on the east side of the building facing Fourth Avenue. That sign was proposed at 3' x 32'. After reviewing the program, it was the conclusion of the Design Review Committee that an ivory background with blue letters would be a better combination to use for the monument program to coincide with the building colors. In addition, they recommended the approval of a sign to be located on the eastern elevation featuring non-lit cutout letters. In arriving at that decision, the Committee noted that in their opinion the stark white background is in sharp contrast to the building and offers additional glare when lit in the evening. D. ANALYSIS In staff's opinion, the applicant's approach to the problem was poorly handled by first installing the signs without receiving City review and/or approval. Nevertheless, the applicants have moved ahead to paint the cabinets and the base of the signs in a color to conform to the building. In reviewing the present white background of the signs, both in the daytime and in the evening, there does not appear to be a significant glare or contrast that would render the signs unacceptable. We concur with the Design Review Committee that an eggshell background would be more in keeping with the building colors and would in fact work well with the blue lettering and logo; however, we also feel that the existing background is acceptable and, therefore, are recommending your approval. In addition, we concur with the Design Review Committee that any signing to be installed on the east elevation should use cut-out letters as opposed to a cabinet-type sign. We also concur that it would be preferable to have an unlit sign as opposed to a lit sign; however, there are no particular objections to lighting the sign other than the fact that the applicant will be using a blue letter which fades or washes out when lit. WPC 5565P E ~'~"STR E ET ST; I I ~ ~ LIBRARY PARK' civic ----', CFNTFR ~HULA VISTA -,--~ , PUBLIC LIBRARY I I 'l~_ if,: M EI~i OR) A L. PARK PARK WAY G STREET CHULA VISTA ~ i CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP 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_owninq~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. 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) ~V)~ IPerson is defined as: "Any individual, firm, ~opartners~ip,.joi~t ventuFe, assoc!~ti~n, ~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate,. ~ru~? re~e~,.synol?~e, this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, o~s:r~ct or other pol~t~cal' ' subdivision,' or any other group or combination acting as a unit."~ (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.) ,~) ~ Signature of applicant/date{/~'~~ WPC 0701P ~)~INT~RNATIONAL BANK Sr.¥icePresidenttCash,er A-110 Print or type name of applicant City Planning Commission Page 1 Agenda Item for Meeting of October 12, 1985 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-89-6: California Custom Truck Shell, 777 ~roadway, Appeal of Revocation of Zoning Permit A. BACKGROUND This item involves the revocation of a zoning permit for a truck shell installation operation conducted at 777 Broadway, Chula Vista. The project is exempt from environmental review under Section 15268 of the CEQA Guidelines. B. RECOM~qENDATION Concur with the Zoning Administrator's decision to revoke the zoning permit for California Custom Truck Shell at 7?7 Broadway and deny the appeal. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent Zoning and Land Use. North C-T Used Car Lot South C-T Car Wash East R-2/R-1 Single Family Dwellings West Commercial Broadway Ave/and motel under construction History July 1987 - Based on a change of ownership at 777 Broadway, a business ~icense and zoning permit was issued to Liz Auto Sales to operate a used car lot at 777 Broadway. November 1987 - California Custom Truck Shell was given a zoning permit and business license to assemble and install truck shells on an area designated near the east6~nd of the auto sales property along with a narrow display area some in width which extended along the southerly property line out to Broadway. Specific conditions were added to the zoning permit which stated that no grinding, cutting, or painting was to occur outside the building and assembly was defined as installing a completed camper shell on a truck. During that same month, the City sent a letter to Mr. Terry Collier who is the owner of California Custom Camper advising him of a finding by the APCD that fiberglass was found in the adjacent residential area, and the letter directed Mr. Collier to cease all outside activities which were causing or contributing to the problem. It should be noted that the District received the formal complaint in May 1986, thus it would appear that Mr. Collier was operating illegally at the subject location prior to receiving his business license and zoning permit in 1987. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 12, 1988 Page 2 July 1988 - After a series of ongoing complaints, the Zoning Enforcement Division and the Planning Department met with Mr. Collier noting that additional complaints had been filed with the staff verifying that his operation had, in fact, expanded and that grinding, drilling, and cutting were causing a nuisance to an adjacent residence to the east. At that meeting, Mr. Collier agreed to conduct all cutting and grinding inside the building and to use drilling only for installing the camper shell to the truck bed. He noted that all doors would be kept closed, the camper shells wiped free of dust before taking them outside, and that inventory would be reduced to have the business back to the size limits as originally approved. He noted that in addition, a conditional use permit would be filed within the next week for a new location. August 1988 - The site was reinspected by Zoning Enforcement and found to be in violation of the zoning regulations, including outside work, and a general lack of control over the fiberglass residue arising from cutting, grinding, and Grilling activity. It was in the latter part of the month that the Planning Department notified Mr. Collier of the violations and that failure to comply had resulted in his zoning permit being revoked, thereby offering him the right of appeal to the City Planning Commission. September 1988 An appeal was filed by Mr. Collier stating that no changes had occurred in the processing at 777 Broadway during the past 24 months. It was also indicated in the appeal that insufficient time had occurred to move the business since the conditional use permit process takes a minimum of four weeks. D. ANALYSIS The complaints of the fiberglass residue extending into the residential area to the east and noise stemming from the cutting and grinding operation have been ongoing for some two years. In fairness to Mr. Collier, it should be noted that the APCD inspections generally indicated there was insufficient evidence to determine a public nuisance; however, they noted that a private nuisance might exist. It should be pointed out that the City performance standards under Section 19.66.140 stipulate among other things that air contaminants cannot be discharged into the air causing a nuisance to the public; thus, a valid complaint from a neighbor could be just cause to determine that a nuisance exists. It should also be noted that the City had received a letter on July 29 of this year from Mr. Collier indicating that he recognized that his property was not of a sufficient size to assemble his products and, in fact, at the end of July he noted that he was securing a new lease at 915 Broadway and would be filing a conditional use permit. (That was two and one-half months ago with no action filed.) The Municipal Code, Section 19.14.550, gives the Zoning Administrator the authority to revoke any zoning permit where conditions of the permit have not been complied with. As noted in the history portion of this report, conditions were clearly labeled at the issuance of the permit that grinding, cutting, or painting was not to occur outside the building. These conditions have been violated by City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 12, 1988 Page 3 evidence of facts supplied to the Planning Department from the Zoning Enforcement Division. Based on the ongoing problems associated with this operation, the department is recommending that the Planning Commission uphold the Zoning AOministrator's decision in revoking the zoning permit. The type of operation Mr. Collier engaged in could well be a good neighbor if conducted on a limited basis and in the manner noted in the approved permit. It is apparent from viewing the operation that the activity level has increased and the operation has grown to a point where it is no longer compatible with this area. In reco~ending the revocation of this permit, we ask that the Commission consider the following findings: 1. That there has been evidence of contaminants occurring in the adjacent residential area causing a nuisance to one or more residents in that area. 2. The applicant has failed to comply with the conditions of the zoning permit, i.e., cutting, drilling, grinding have occurred outside an enclosed structure by evidence of the reports given in verbal and written form by the Zoning Enforcement Division. 3. Applicant failed to comply with the site plan limits established for the location to do business at 777 Broadway. WPC 5570P ® ® LOCATOR PCM-89-6 777 BROADWAY ~ 771 BROADWAY OLD HOUSE USED CAR LOT T~UCKS. a. Lr(~N~'~ i~l~ t BRICK CU~lm ~ ~PCM-89-6 . ~ ._.~ October 6, 1988 'OCT City of Chula Vista Planning Department Attn.: Mr. Kenneth Lee and Mr. Michael Fox Dear Sirs: In regards to Calif. Custom Truck Shells & Sales, Terry Collier. Terry Collier is not my Tenant. He is a subleaser from my tenant Joe Carreras and Jose Acosta. I agreed for him to be there for Sales and Service of Camper shells only. Since January 20, 1985, I agreed to let him in there under those terms. I have had nothing but trouble from that day on with Joe Carreras, Jose Acosta and Terry Collier. I realize that Michael Fox has had trouble with them tco. After Mr. Co!!±~r ~nt mT &n¢~ talked to Mr. Lee and asked him for his license I went up and talked to Mr. Lee and asked him to not issue him a license. Mr. Lee refused and he got his license. Yours very truly, '- Olen A. Hoy, O ' P.S. I am sorry I cannot attend the meeting as I will be out of town for 10 days. I am trying to get ~r. Bendickson to attend in my place. Thank you very much. Olen. City Planning Commission Page 1 Agenda Item for Meeting of October 12, 1988 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-89-2 and P-89-1: Consideration of tentative subdivision map and precise plan for Rancho del Re~ Unit llb, Chula Vista Tract 89-2 Rancho del Rey Partnership A. BACKGROUND This item is a tentative subdivision map and precise plan to subdivide 13.8 acres within Rancho del Rey (RdR) SPA ! into 77 single-family lots. The site is located west of Otay Lakes Road and Ridgeback Road, south of Bonita Vista Junior High School. The Commission and Council approved the majority of the subdivision program for RdR SPA I earlier this year. The site in question was one of two single-family areas withheld from that program pending the development of a full precise plan package. The Commission previously adopted EIR-87-1, which includes the entire RdR SPA I including the site in question. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings contained in Section D of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map (PCS-89-2) and precise plan (P-89-1) for Rancho del Rey Unit llb, Chula Vista Tract 89-2, subject to the following conditions: 1. Public improvements as described in this resolution shall include, but not be limited to: A.C. pavement and base, concrete curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lights, signs, street trees, fire hydrants, sanitary sewer, water and drainage facilities. All improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City standards. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of full public improvements for all streets shown on the Tentative Map within the Subdivision. Dedication and improvement of Ridgeback Road shall be guaranteed prior to approval of the Final Map. 3. Graded access shall be provided to all storm drain structures including inlet and outlet structures as required by the City Engineer. Paved access shall be provided to drainage structures located in the rear yard of any residential lot. 4. The developer shall obtain and grant to the City easements for all offsite storm drains prior to approval of any Final Map requiring those facilities. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 12, 1988 Page 2 5. Specific methods of handling storm drainage are subject to detailed approval by the City Engineer at the time of submission of improvement and grading plans. Design shall be accomplished on the basis of the requirements of the Subdivision Manual and the Grading Ordinance (#1797 as amended). 6. The developer shall submit calculations to demonstrate compliance with all drainage requirements of the Subdivision Manual to include, but not be limited to, dry lane requirements. Calculations shall also be provided to demonstrate the adequacy of downstream drainage structures, pipes and inlets. 7. Lots shall be so graded as to drain to the street or to an approved drainage system. Drainage shall not be permitted to flow over slopes. 8. The developer shall obtain notarized letters of permission for all offsite grading work prior to issuance of grading permit for work requiring said offsite grading. 9. Sewer manholes shall be provided at all changes of alignment and grade. Sewers serving 10 or less equivalent dwelling units shall have a minimum grade of 1 per cent. lO. All grading and improvements shall be done in conformance with the Rancho Del Rey design guidelines. ll. The subject property is within the boundaries of the proposed Assessment District 87-1 (East "H" Street Assessment District). The developer shall agree to not protest formation of the Assessment District 87-1 and to not protest inclusion of the subject property in said District. The developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with reapportionment of assessments as a result of subdivision of lands within the project boundary. 12. The developer shall pay "Eastern Area Development Impact Fees" prior to issuance of building permits. The amount of said fees to be paid shall be that in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 13. The developer shall be responsible for repayment of construction costs for the Rice Canyon Sewer in accordance with Resolution 11574 until such time as repayment in accordance with said resolution is completed. 14. The developer shall comply with all relevant Federal, state and local regulations, including the Clean Water Act. The developer shall be responsible for providing all required testing and documentation to demonstrate said compliance as required by the City Engineer. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 12, 1988 Page 3 15. The developer shall grant easements for all offsite public storm drains prior to approval of any final map requiring those facilities. Easements shall be a minimum width of six feet greater than pipe size, but in no case, less than 10 feet. 16. An erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be included as part of the grading plans. 17. The developer shall grant to the City street tree planting and maintenance easements along all public streets within the Subdivision as required by the City Engineer. 18. Subsequent to approval of Final Subdivision Maps, building permits for development of the subject property may be withheld if any of the following occur: a) The public facilities monitoring program in the Public Facilities Plan indicates that facilities are operating beyond the identified level of service. b) Traffic volumes of East "H" Street exceeds 56,500 vehicles per day measured immediately easterly of Hidden Vista Drive. c) Regional building permits exceed thresholds identified in the Public Facilities Plan. d) Traffic volumes, levels of service, utilities and/or services exceed the adopted City threshold standards. 19. The slope and rear property line of lot ~l may require adjustment to provide adequate intersection sight distance. 20. The approval of all final maps by the City Council will require the compliance with the City's adopted threshold standards to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning. 21. The developer shall enter into an agreement with the Otay Water District to provide terminal water storage and other major facilities to assure water availability to the project. 22. Open space lots A through E shall be included within an open space maintenance district. A landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted and approved for all open space lots prior to the issuance of building permits. 23. The adopted CC&R's shall contain a disclosure to buyers regarding future construction of above-ground and below-ground facilities planned by SDG&E for the right-of-way area. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 12, 1988 Page 4 24. PAD and RCT shall be waived or modified as provided in the adopted financing plan for Rancho Del Rey. 25. Fire hydrants are to be installed, tested and fully in operation prior to any combustible materials being placed on site. 26. The following conditions relate to the precise plan: a. The landscape area fronting the entry wall on the west side shall be expanded to a minimum of 5 ft. in width. b. The Homeowner Guide shall include the prohibition against RV parking as outlined in the Planned Community regulations. c. The Homeowner Guide shall include a lot-by-lot listing of lot size, coverage, and FAR prior to approval of a final map. d. The Homeowner Guide shall be recorded with each lot. C. DISCUSSION 1. Project Setting The project site is identified as Residential Unit llb on the RdR SPA I Site Utilization Plan, which designates the property for single family detached development at a target density of 7.1 du/ac and a maximum yield of 90 units. The site is located at the southeast intersection of the proposed RdR loop road and Ridgeback Road extended. Bonita Vista Junior High School and other residential areas are located to the north, west and east of the property, with a community park site and open space areas to the south. 2. Development Standards Development standards for the property are contained in the RdR Planned Community District Regulations. These regulations provide for a minimum lot size of 3,500 sq. ft. (minimum average of 4,000 sq. ft.), minimum lot width of 40 ft. (minimum average of 45 ft.), and a lot depth of 90 ft. which may be modified with precise plan approval. The regulations also call for a maximum lot coverage of 50%, and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.55. 3. Project Description The project calls for 77 single family detached lots served by a loop street and cul-de-sac with a single access point off Ridgeback Road. The property will be graded so that the project will be elevated above the RdR loop road to the west and the community park to the south, and below the Junior High School and residential areas to the north and east. The slopes along the south, west and north boundary City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 12, 1988 Page 5 of the site will be included within an open space maintenance district. An open space corridor lot at the southeast boundary of the site will provide pedestrian access from within the subdivision to the community park and open space areas to the south and southeast. The project yield of 77 lots is under the 90 unit maximum established by the SPA plan, and the project density of 5.6 du/ac is also within the designated target density of 7.1 du/ac. The project has a minimum lot size of 3,546 sq. ft., a maximum lot size of 11,904 sq. ft., and an average lot size of 4,928 sq. ft. These figures are consistent with the 3,500 sq. ft. minimum and 4,000 sq. ft. average lot sizes called for by the Planned Community district regulations. The lot pattern reflects a wide/shallow concept with lots averaging approximately 55'-60' wide and 60'-70' deep, which is also consistent with the standards subject to precise plan approval. The project features three floor plans; all two-story units ranging from 1,503 sq. ft. to 1,786 sq. ft. of living area plus a two-car garage. The floor plan used on corner lots, including both lots at the project entrance off Ridgeback Road, has a single-story element adjacent to the exterior side yard in order to reduce the dwelling bulk and open up the street scene at these locations. Rear elevations have been architecturally treated because of their exposure to public rights of way. All of the lots meet the lot coverage, setbacks and floor area ratio established by the Planned Community district regulations. The garages are all set back at least 19.5 ft. from the back of the sidewalk in order to accommodate parking in the driveway. Because of the wide/shallow lot pattern there is ample frontage along the street to accommodate parking; the ratio being approximately 1.5 on-street spaces per lot. A fencing program provides for perimeter fence designs as well as fencing interior to the project. View fencing is proposed at the rear of lots overlooking the RdR loop road and the community park, while a solid sound wall is shown along Ridgeback Road. The entryway will have a special wall design, and we have recommended that the landscape area fronting the entry wall on the west side be expanded to at least 5 ft. in order to provide sufficient planting width consistent with the treatment on the east side of the entry. The proposal also includes a Homeowner Improvement Guide as called for by the PC district regulations. This document will be recorded with each lot, and outlines the standards and guidelines for future additions or changes. We have recommended that the Guide specifically refer to the prohibition against extended RV parking in the street or areas visible from the street, as called for by the PC regulations. Also, the document should contain a list of all final lot sizes, coverages, and FAR's for each lot in order to provide notice to each homeowner of development limits and to facilitate future administration of the development standards. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 12, 1988 Page 6 D. FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative subdivision map for Rancho del Rey Unit llb, Chula Vista Tract 89-2, is found to be in conformance with the various elements of the City's General Plan based on the following: 1. The site is physically suitable for residential development and the proposal conforms to all standards established by the City for such projects. 2. The design of the subdivision will not affect the existing improvements--streets, sewers, etc.--which have been designed to avoid any serious problems. 3. The project is in substantial conformance with the Chula Vista General Plan Elements as follows: a. Land Use: The residential use and density of the site is consistent with the adopted RdR SPA I plan. b. Circulation: All on- and off-site street improvements are consistent with the public facilities and SPA plan for RdR. c. Housing: The project will provide a small-lot single-family detached product as a housing alternative within the RdR community. d. Conservation: The conservation of major land forms was addressed by the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. This project is consistent with that plan. e. Park and Recreation Open Space: The overall parks and recreation/open space program was established by the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan and refined by the RdR SPA I plan. This project is consistent with those plans, including a pedestrian link from the project to the community park/trails system to the south. f. Seismic Safety: Mitigation measures relating to slope stability and grading identified in the environmental document for the SPA plan will be incorporated into the project. g. Safety: The project will be within existing or proposed response times of all public safety agencies. Compliance with the City's threshold standards will have to be shown prior to approval of a final map. h. Noise: All dwelling units will be designed so as not to exceed the interior noise level of 45 dBA. A sound wall will be established along the rear of the lots backing onto Ridgeback Road. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 12, 1988 Page 7 i. Scenic Highway: Open space lots are proposed adjacent to the abutting public streets. j. Bicycle Routes: All of the major roads within RdR have been designed to accommodate bicycle movement. k. Public Buildings: The RdR SPA plan and public facilities finance plan include provisions for the dedication and improvement and/or contribution to various public facilities, including school sites, park and fire facilities, and libraries. 4. Pursuant to Section 66412.2 of the Subdivision Map Act, the Commission certifies that it has considered the effect of this approval on the housing needs of the region and has balanced those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City and available fiscal and environmental resources. WPC 5573P CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING I COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. I The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. A. McMillin Communities~ Inc., National City, CA B. Home Capital Development Group, a subsidiary of Home Federal Savings & Loan, San Diego, :A List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. E1 Rancho Del Rex Partnership, a California General Partnership composed of lA and lB above. 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. . McMillin Communities, Inc.: McMillin family trust - Macey L. & Vonnie L. McMillin Trustees (40%) Mark D. McMillin, Laurie A. Ray & Scott M. McMillin (20% ea) Home Capital Development Group; 100% by Home Federal Savings & Loan, San Diego, CA 3. If any person identified pursuant to (l) 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. N/A 4. ltave you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No × If yes, please indicate person(s) Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, ~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit." ~§nature ot applicant/date WPC 0701P Steven E. McGill/Senior Vice President A-1lO Print or type name of applicant Rancho Del ReX Partnership Managing Partner CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATE~NT AP~ ....... ~T~,TEME.~ ~ J~ ......... ~R,~,~ ~W~,~n,r ~,.cKLS~ Oi~ ALL APFL~Ai'IUN$ , WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING l COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: l. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. A. McMillin Communities~ Inc., National City, CA B. Home Capital Development Group, a subsidiary of Home Federal Savings & Loan, San Diego, ~A List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. E1 Rancho Del Rey Partnership, a California General Partnership composed of lA and lB above. 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. . McMillin Communities, Inc.: McMillin family trust - Macey L. & Vonnie L. McMillin Trustees (40%) Mark D. McMillin, Laurie A. Ray & Scott M. McMillin (20% ea) Home Capital Development Group; 100% by Home Federal Savings & Loan, San Diego, CA 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. ~/A 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) I 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~/ ,~' ,y/?///// ,,,~ ~ ~g ur o pp ~cant/¢a~e ' WPC 0701P Steven E. McGill/Senior Vice President A-110 P'rint or type name of applicant Rancho Del Rey Partnership Managing Partner City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 12, 1988 Page 1 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-88-21; Consideration of an amendment to the Municipal Code establishing standards and requirements for the accessory use of churches as temporary shelters for the homeless - City initiated A. BACKGROUND On September 13, 1988, the City Council adopted an urgency ordinance (~2285) establishing an accessory use process to facilitate the use of churches as temporary shelters for the homeless. The Council directed staff to return with a permanent amendment within 90 days. This item originated last January, when the Council approved by minute action a request by the Regional Task Force on the Homeless to allow two local churches to participate in the Interfaith Shelter Network (ISN). The ISN consists of churches throughout the region which provide temporary shelters for the homeless during the winter months. East "host" congregation is committed to provide two weeks of shelter and two meals a day for up to 12 people and then the program rotates to another congregation. Other "support" congregations assist the host church by providing help with meal preparation, transportation and supervision. The proposed amendment is exempt from environmental review. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council adopt an amendment to the Municipal Code as shown on Exhibit A. C. DISCUSSION The permanent amendment is exactly the same as the urgency ordinance. It would establish that a temporary shelter limited to 12 guests for no more than two weeks a year shall be considered an accessory church use upon the issuance of a zoning permit, and subject to requirements regarding supervision, neighborhood notification, and compliance with health and safety regulations. A zoning permit is used by the City to certify that a specific land use complies with the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance. In this case the provisions would be the non-discretionary standards and requirements listed in Exhibit A. The permit would also serve as a record of shelter use in order to monitor compliance with the time limitation. There would be no fee for the zoning permit. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 12, 1988 Page 2 The time limitation has been drafted so that the Zoning Administrator may grant an additional 180 days of shelter use provided there has been no complaints from surrounding residents. Additional time may also be granted via a conditional use permit -- either administratively, or upon appeal by public hearing before the Planning Commission. The amendment requires a recognized social service agency to prescreen guests. Active alcohol or drug abusers as well as those with serious criminal records or significant mental problems are excluded from the program. Supervision is required at all times, and the host congregation is required to certify that surrounding property owners have been notified of the proposal. A floor plan with set-up is required in order to determine compliance with health and safety codes. It is also proposed that the host congregation submit a brief outline of the proposal in order that the City may be aware of and respond to any citizen inquiries regarding the nature of the shelter proposal. The outline would include the prescreening criteria and agency, the provisions for supervision, and daily schedule. A 10-day lead time is suggested for the submission of the necessary information and certification of notice. This will provide adequate time for the required health and safety inspection, and also represents the customary lead time for notice to surrounding residents (although in this case there is no provision for neighborhood input or appeal except as it would relate to an extension of the time period beyond the basic two week allowance). Finally, a letter has been received which asks for clarification of the Zoning Administrator's discretion in the case of neighborhood opposition to an extension of shelter use beyond the basic two-week period (please refer to attached letter and item #1 on Exhibit A). In response, it is our intent that any opposition from a neighbor in interest--either within or outside the 300 ft. notice area (see item #5 on Exhibit A)--would be sufficient to activate the conditional use permit process (see item #8 on Exhibit A), at which time the Zoning Administrator would evaluate the substance of the opposition in reaching a decision on the request. Also, the Zoning Administrator's decision could be appealed on to the Planning Commission. WPC 5555P EXHIBIT A Chapter 19.58 USES 19.58.110 Church, hospital, convalescent hospital, religious or eleemosynary institution. Any church, hospital, convalescent hospital or other religious or eleemosynary institution in any R zone shall be located on a collector street or thoroughfare with a minimum parcel of one acre, shall maintain a ten-foot wide minimum landscaped strip or solid six-foot fence or masonry wall on all property lines abutting said R zone, except that said fence or wall may be reduced to three and one-half feet in a landscaped front setback area not containing parking facilities, and shall have side yard and rear yard setbacks of at least twenty feet and a front yard setback of at least twenty feet. (Ord. 1356 § 1 {part), 1971: Ordin. 1212 § 1 (part), 1969: prior code § 33.901(B)(10).) The provision of temporary shelter for the homeless in accordance with the following standards and requirements is considered accessory to church use subject to the issuancu ota zoning permit: 1. A shelter may accommodate a maximum of 12 guests for no more than two weeks per year. An additional 180 days may be authorized by the Zoning Administrator provided no opposition has been expressed by surrounding property owners or residents. 2. The guests shall be prescreened by a recognized social service agency to determine resident suitability. Active alcohol or drug abusers, those convicted of a felony or crime of violence, or those with a significant mental illness shall be excluded from the program. Supervision shall be provided at all times both on-site and during arrivals and departures from the she~ter. 3. A floor plan and set-up of the space to be occupied shall be submitted, along with a description of the shelter proposal to include the prescreening agency and criteria,' provisions for supervision, and schedule of hours and activities. 4. A post set-up inspection shall be conducted by the City in order to determine compliance with applicable building, health, safety and fire regulations. 5. The applicant shall provide the City with certification that written notice of the proposal has been given to properties within 300 ft. of the shelter site. The hosL congregation is encourage~ to ~o~ a nelgn~ornoo~ meeting to ~ntorm residents o~ the proposal and answer questions well before the commencement date. 6. The application for zoning permit, set-up plan, supplemental information and certification of notice shall be submitted at least 10 days prior to the commencemenL date. 7. The zoning permit shall be subject to immediate revocation for violation of the standards or report of neighborhood disturbance. 8. Shelter proposals beyond the limits noted in item #1 above are considered conditional uses subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. WPC 5490P 677 G ST., Sp. 26 Chula Vista, CA 92010 September 14, 1988 The Mayor and City Council Chula Vista, CA 92010 Dear Mayor and Council Members: Thank you for allowing me to address you during the public hearing section of item number 13 of last evening's agenda, subject matter being the ordinance regarding use of churches for the homeless. I feel I had your attention and am appreciative. Nevertheless, I must say I am disappointed with the results of your deliberations on the subject ordinance. Your discussions and final adoption of a 180 day possible extension for such use of the churches seemed encouraging, but the ordinance is left with the negative, if not actually threatening, clause, ''providing there has been no complaints from surrounding residents.'' How many complaints? Who is defined as ''surrounding residents?'' Such clause is so nebulous that I doubt its value. Is the Zoning Administrator to exe~cize sole discretion in this matter? What are the criteria he Iwill use to evaluate valid complaints? If this clause is not clarified, I fear there are likely to be problems sooner than we want. Therefore, I hereby request that this specific item become a matter for your reconsideration at your earliest convenience. I would like very much to hear from your Zoning Administrator how he would deal with this issue without further clarification. sincerely yours, Copy to: Zoning Administrator ~-< ~-> City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 12, 1988 Page 1 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-89-5; request to create substandard parking area at 579 Casselman Street - Jose Isabal A. BACKGROUND This is a request to vary from the City's parking standards with respect to the size of parking spaces and circulation areas and the amount of landscape planting in order to provide the eight parking spaces required to serve a 4-unit apartment project which is under construction at 579 Casselman Street in the R-3 zone. The proposal is exempt from environmental review. The applicant is pursuing a variance because the project was reviewed and approved on the basis of incorrect plans submitted by the applicant which showed the lot to be 50' x 150' (7,500 sq. ft.) rather than the actual lot size of 50' x 136' (6,800 sq. ft.). This discrepancy has also resulted in a density which exceeds by one unit the maximum allowed for the lot by the underlying R-3 zone. The applicant will seek Council approval of a low- and moderate-income density bonus in order to legitimize the extra unit, provided the variance is approved. B. RECO~IMENDATION Adopt a motion to deny ZAV-89-5. C. DISCUSSION The site is a level, rectangular 50' x 136' (6,800 sq. ft.) lot. The project involves the addition of three units to an existing single family dwelling to form a two-story, 4-unit apartment building consisting of one 3-bedroom and three 2-bedroom units. The structure is essentially completed and is located on the front portion of the site. The parking area is located to the rear with access off Casselman Street by way of a 12 ft.-wide driveway. The 14 ft. deficiency between the depth of the lot on the plans and the actual lot size has left an area measuring 50' x 51' (2,563 sq. ft.) rather than 50' x 65' (3,250 sq. ft.) to accommodate the eight parking spaces required to serve the four unit project. As a result, the parking area plan has been revised to rearrange spaces, reduce the width of stalls and the depth of back-up areas, and reduce the amount of landscape planting (please see exhibit). City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 12, 1988 Page 2 D. ANALYSIS A comparison of the revised parking plan with City standards shows several deficiencies. One space is located between the wall of the apartment building and the support columns for a second-story balcony and is inaccessible. The remaining seven spaces have from 0.75-1.75 ft. less than the required stall width, and three of these spaces have 5-6 ft. less than the required back-up area. Also, the narrower width of the stalls complicates maneuvering for the four spaces that do have standard back-up areas. Finally landscaping has been reduced to 125 sq. ft. of the parking area, which is less than one-half the 10% (255 sq. ft.) required by Code. Because of these deficiencies, the parking area can reasonably accommodate a total of six 16) vehicles. The eight-space layout proposed by the applicant causes literally all but one or two of the spaces to be unusable without several awkward maneuvers. The likely result is the lot would not be used by eight 18) cars, thus forcing parking onto the street in an area which is already overburdened with on-street parking. The applicant states that the variance should be granted because the lot size was not discovered to be incorrect until the building was completed and that the City should have verified the size of the lot during plan check. It obviously would have been desirable to discover the error early on. However, the applicant and his architect must bear the responsibility for submitting the correct site information. The City cannot be responsible for confirming lot size information, much of which can be verified only by a title search. Presently all plans must be stamped and signed by the architect verifying site information. However, the stamp program was not in effect when these plans were filed. Assuming the variance is denied, the applicant will be required to submit revised plans converting two of the units to a single unit. The resulting 3-unit project would thereby comply with the density allowed for the lot if the dimensions had been shown correctly in the beginning, and the project would require six rather than eight off-street parking spaces. Six spaces could be accommodated in a fashion which would allow all of the spaces to function adequately. E. FINDINGS 1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in developing the property for the needs of the owner consistent with the regulations of the zone; but in this context, personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits, and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance. Further, a previous variance can never have set a precedent, for each case must be considered only on its individual merits. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 12, 1988 Page 3 The project was reviewed and approved on the basis of plans submitted to the City which incorrectly showed the lot as 50' x 150' rather than the actual lot size of 50' x 136'. Thus the hardship, if any, was specifically created by an act of the owner and/or his agents, and is not peculiar to the property itself. Further, financial considerations or loss of prospective profits are not hardships justifying a variance. 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. Other properties in the same zone and vicinity are subject to the same parking standards which apply to the property in question. The granting of the variance would therefore represent a special privilege not enjoyed by neighboring properties which choose to develop/redevelop under current City standards. 3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter or the public interest. The granting of the variance would likely increase the amount of on-street parking to the detriment of adjacent properties in an area which is already overburdened with on-street parking. 4. That the authorizing of such variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. The granting of the variance is inconsistent with City policy and regulations designed to ensure adequate and convenient on-site parking to serve all new developments. WPC 5569P STREi I LOCATOR ZAV-89-5 v,j.2WNORTH ,,..,,, c.,.~... ,,,,,, ~ Il ~ CI]Y OF CHUI.A VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT September 27, 1988 Mr. Jose Isabel 707 East 'J' Street Chula Vista, CA 92010 SUBJECT: Construction project at 579 Casselman Street Dear Mr. Isabel: The Planning Department has previously advised you that there is insufficient lot area under the regulations of the Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance to allow the four dwelling units currently under construction at 579 Casselman Street. The incorrect lot dimensions shown on your building plans are at fault. Based on the correct dimensions, only three units are allowed. We acknowledge that you have applied for a variance (parking and landscaping) and have requested a density bonus for the project. The variance will be considered at a public hearing by the Planning Commission on October 12, 1988. The decision of the Commission may be appealed to the City Council or the Council may themselves request to hear the item. Depending on the variance outcome, the density bonus request will be processed and will likewise require City Council approval. In the interim, until the above actions occur or until revised building plans are submitted and approved converting two of the units to one unit, occupancy of the dwelling units shall not be permitted. As always, the Planning Department Staff will be as cooperative as possible in expediting the processing of your request, however, you should also be advised that at this time, it does not appear that the Planning Department Staff could recommend approval of the variance to the Planning Commission. In the event further explanation or clarification of this directive should be necessary, please do not hesitate to contact either the undersigned or the Director of Building and Housing at 691-5007. Sincerely, ~eorge Krempl / Planning Director GK:je cc: Mr. Roger K. Pierce, 5120 Robinwood Rd. Ste E21, Bonita 92002 Mr. Ken Lee, Principal Planner Mr. David Gustafson, Assistant Director of Community Development Mr. Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing 276 FOURTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA CALIFORNIA 92010/16191 691-5101 CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP 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. JOSE ISABAL List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. JOSE ISABAL 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. N/A 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. N/A 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 X If yes, please indicate person(s) IPerson 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 Ipolitical subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit." . (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.) Signature of app)fcant/date ., WPC 0701P JOSE ISABAL A-110 Print or type name of applicant