Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1988/09/06 Item 24 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT 01 ~,~.n 13 Item 24 Dated Meeting Date 9/6/88 Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit PCC-88-23M; request to expand a mini-warehouse facility located at 340 Naples Street - Naples Street Investors, Inc. Resolution Approving expansion of the mini-warehouse facility located at 340 Naples Street SUBMITTED BY: Director of P1anningC\</ REVIEWED BY: City Manager~ ITEM TITLE: (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) -- . The City Council, at their meeting of April 26, 1988, considered an appeal of a denial of a major use permit to expand an existing mini-warehouse at 340 Napl es Street and was presented with revi sed pl ans and el evati ons enhanci ng the architecture of the proposed expansion. Council voted to continue the hearing on the appeal until the Montgomery Planning Committee had reviewed the new architectural design and had an opportunity to comment. An Initial Study, IS-88-33M, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Envi ronmental Revi ew Coordi nator on January 20, 1988. The Environmental Review Coordinator concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended that the Negative Declaration be adopted. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-33M. 2. Based on the findings contained in the Findings section of this report, approve the request, PCC-88-23M, to expand a mini-warehouse facility located at 340 Naples Street subject to the following conditions: a. The proposed expansion including all signs shall be submitted for review and approval by the Design Review Committee. b. The applicant shall provide two on-site fire hydrants, the type and location subject to review and approval by the City Fire Marshal. Details of existing fire protection systems shall also be provided for review by the Fire Marshal. . c. Any expansion or alteration to the proposed mini-warehouse project which exceeds the height shown on the approved site plan and exterior elevations shall be subject to approval of a modification of the major use permit. , I . . . Page 2, Item 24 Meeting Date 9/6/88 d. Open storage of any materi al s or vehi cl es of any type is expressly prohibited. The appl i cant shall submit a 1 andscape pl an prepared by a 1 i censed 1 andscape archi tect or 1 i censed 1 andscape contractor in accordance with the City Landscape Manual for review and approval by the City Landscape Architect. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan and maintained in good condition at all times. Failure to maintain required landscaping in good condition shall constitute grounds for revocation of the major use permit. e. The following list of items are required under the authority of the Chula Vista Municipal Code: a. A construction permit will be required for any work performed in the public right-of-way. b. Required public improvements shall include, but not be limited to: paving, curb and gutter, a street light and a driveway approach. c. Sewer and traffic signal fees are assessed at issuance of building permits. d. A minimum 20 foot wide roadway for fire access shall be provided per UFC 10.207 (e ). e. Provide a turnaround for fire apparatus at the east property line per UFC 10.207h. f. Provide two A10BC rated fire extinguishers so travel distance does not exceed 75 feet. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Montgomery Planning Committee, at their meeting of June 1, 1988, voted to continue the hearing on the Council referral until July 20, 1988, in order to allow staff to formulate proposed conditions of approval and findings for approval of the major use permit (staff's recommendation to the Committee was for denial of the major use permit, therefore, conditions of approval were not available). The item was automatically continued to August 3 when the meeting of July 20 was cancelled. At the r~ontgomery Planning Committee meeting of August 3, the project was reevaluated with the Committee voting 6-1 for approval. In revising their previous decisions, the Committee concluded that the revised design addressed the bulk of their concerns and provided a good transition between the commercial to the east and the residential to the west. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of August 10, 1988, voted unanimously to recommend approval of the major use permit, subject to the conditions included in this report. I I . . .. . Page 3, Item 24 Meeting Date 9/6/88 DISCUSSION: The appl i cant, Napl es Street Investors Ltd., currently owns a mi ni -warehouse storage facil ity at 350 Napl es Street di rectly behi nd the proposed project site at 340 Naples Street. The major use permit application proposes to expand the mini-warehouse facility by demolishing three existing single-family dwellings to construct three two-story mini-warehouse buildings, one containing an office and caretakers unit. The project site lies within a C-36 general commercial zone, which permit mini-warehouses upon approval of a major use permit. Both the original facility and the proposed expansion lie within the jurisdiction of the Montgomery Specific Plan. Revised plans and elevations submitted to the Planning Department on May 25 show that the proposed expansion has been reduced from three two-story mini-warehouse buildings to single-story structures, with the exception of the caretaker's residence placed on a second story on the west side of the building facing Naples Street. The architectural treatment and the reduction in bulk and scale are significant improvements over the previous proposal. The roof over the offi ce and caretaker's residence is shown wi th royal blue roof tile matching the roof treatment of the adjacent commercial buildings. The length of the building facing Naples Street is shown with wood fascia and trim to break up the monotony of the long windowless wall and create interest in the building. The change in architecture and scaling down the building bulk were instrumental to the Montgomery Planning Committee in making the expansion acceptable. The Committee also considered the other commercial land uses allowed within the C-36 zone and concluded that expansion of the warehouse activity was a better alternative. FINDINGS Findings for approval of the major use permit are listed as follows: 1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. The proposed expansion of an existing mini-warehouse facility as proposed will provide a buffer between commercial and residential areas, while providing an architectural link between the two land uses. 2. That such use wi 11 not under the ci rcumstances of the parti cul ar case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed expansion of an existing mini-warehouse facility as proposed is in keeping with a bulk and scale complementary to the neighboring residential areas, and as such will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. r., .. 1/ . . ~ . Page 4, Item 24 Meeting Date 9/6/88 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. With approval of facility as well complies with the such use. a major use permit for the existing mini-warehouse as the expansion, the proposed mini-warehouse use regul ati ons and condi ti ons specifi ed in the Code for 4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely a ffect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. Although the Planning and Design Proposals (page l6(f)) of the newly adopted Montgomery Specifi c Pl an di scourages the prol iferati on of mini-warehouses within Montgomery, the proposed project is an exception. The requested major use permit would not authorize the establishment of a new mini-warehouse use on the subject premises, but would merely sanction the expansion and comprehensive upgrading of an existing facility. This expansion and upgrading would substantially improve the mini-warehouse's visual and functional relationships, and improve its economic potential. FISCAL IMPACT: None WPC 5491P