Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1988/09/20 Item 16 ~ W' . . COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT I tern 16 Meeting Date 9/20/88 ITEM TITLE: Pubic Hearing: ZAV-89-3; decision granting reduction 495 Smith Avenue Appeal from Planning Commission in exterior sideyard setback at Resolution~ Reversing the decision of the Planning Commission and thereby denying ZAV-89-3 Resol uti onj.3 ? P'~ Affi rmi ng the decision of the Planning Commission an thereby approving ZAV-89-3 SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning G~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager IJL~1V (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) -- On August 20,1988, the Planning Commission approved Variance ZAV-89-3 to locate parking within the exterior sideyard setback and reduce landscape screening from 10 ft. to 1.5 ft. along Smith Avenue in conjunction with a proposal to construct a 3,300 sq. ft., two-story office building on a 60 ft. x 125 ft. parcel at the northeast corner of "H" Street and Smi th Avenue, directly north of the Chula Vista Shopping Center. The Council was apprised of this action and Councilman Moore asked that the item be appealed to the City Council. The proposal is exempt from environmental review. RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt a resolution to reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and thereby deny ZAV-89-3. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission, on August 10, 1988, voted 7-0 to approve the request in accordance with Resolution ZAV-89-3. The Resource Conservation Commission, which reviews Commission and Council agendas for items of interest and comment, chose to support the staff recommendation for denial by a vote of 6-0 at their meeting of August 8, 1988. DISCUSSION: Adjacent zoning and land use. North South East West R-2 C-C C-C-D C-C-D Si ngl e-family Shopping Center Commercial Commerci al ~ (1 - 1 )/7 5' s ..... ~ Page 2, Item 16 Meeting Date 9/20/88 Existing site characteristics. The si te is a rectangu1 ar, 7,481 sq. ft. parcel wi th 60 ft. of frontage on "W Street and 125 ft. of frontage on Smith Avenue. The property is zoned C-C-D (Central Commercial with design control) and presently contains a single-family dwelling. Proposed request. The proposal would establish parking within 1.5 ft. of the property line along Smith Avenue. This is a reduction of 8.5 ft. from the 10 ft. setback required by Code. The plan is to construct a 3,318 sq. ft. two- story office building and 14 off-street parking spaces on the site. The 14 required parking spaces are based on the proposal for a 1,600 sq. ft. dental office on the ground floor (1 space per 200 sq. ft. of floor area), and 1,718 sq. ft. of general offices on the second floor (1 space per 300 sq. ft. of floor area). ANALYSIS: . The granting of a variance requires a finding of unique hardship peculiar to the property. In this case, the app1 icant states that the property is a corner lot wi th an exteri or s i deyard setback wh i ch reduces the abi 1 i ty to develop the site and thus reduces the value of the site in relation to adjacent parcels. It is true that corner parcel s wi th two street frontages are subject to an exterior sideyard setback which is greater than the sideyard setback which would apply to a lot interior to the block. But this circumstance applies to every corner parcel in the City with the exception of some areas in the Central Business district in and around Third Avenue and "F" Street. Whatever disadvantage this may represent in terms of deve10pabi1ity versus the advantage of corner parcel s in terms of exposure and accessibil ity is or should be known and assessed in any valuation/purchase of commercial property. It is not a unique hardship. . The applicant further states that the two parking spaces in the setback are required only because the dental office is assessed by Code at a greater park i ng rati 0 than general offi ce use, and that parking wou1 d be adequate if the enti re bui 1 di ng was devoted to general offi ces. The proposal calls for 1600 sq. ft. or approximately 48% of the office space to be allocated for dental use. The City's parking standards were amended several years ago in recognition of the fact that medical and dental offices generate on average a much greater demand for parking than general office use. An additional consideration is that even assuming no dental use and thus two less parking spaces and no exterior sideyard encroachment, this modest parcel is able to accommodate as much floor area as is indicated only because it is abutting a public alley which provides access and 960 sq. ft. of parking back-up area (16 ft. x 60ft) which would otherwise have to be provided on the site. This is a distinct advantage over parcels not abutting an alley. p,- J Y7(fj . Page 3, Item 16 Meeting Date 9/20/88 Most importantly, the Code requires any parking area for more than five vehicles to be screened by a lO-foot-wide landscape strip in order to soften and obscure the visual impact of pavement and automobiles. In the present case, the lO-ft. setback and lO-ft. screening requirement are identical. The 10-ft. dimensi on is consi dered the mi nimum depth necessary to achi eve the landscape screening in an aesthetic manner. The proposal, on the other hand, would establish a landscape strip with a depth of only 1 ft., which is totally inadequate to provide proper screening of the parking area. Should the Council choose to approve the request, the impact could be partially ameliorated by establishing a standard 5.5 ft. non-commercial monolithic curb/sidewalk along the Smith Avenue frontage. This would leave 4.5 ft. of right-of-way behind the sidewalk which could be planted in conjunction with the 1 ft. strip on the applicant's property -- resulting in a landscape screen with a total depth of 5.5 ft. The landscaping coupled with a 3 ft. high decorati ve wall woul d offer a better sol uti on than currently proposed by the applicant's design, although it would result in a jog in the sidewalk. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: . In approving the request, the Planning Commission indicated that in their opinion the existence of other projects in the vicinity without setbacks or 1 andscape screeni ng justifi ed an excepti on to the Code in thi s case. The office building directly to the west of the site, at the northwest corner of "W Street and Smith Avenue was used as the primary compari son, but the Planning Commission also stated that they could not recall any projects within the area which meet the 10 ft. setback/screening standard. In response, the office building at the northwest corner of "H" Street and Smith Avenue was constructed 31 years ago (1957), and well before the adoption of the City I S present zoni ng ordi nance in 1969. We do not bel i eve that the existence of this or other older projects which do not meet present development standards justifies lowering those standards for new projects. If thi s were the case, future development woul d be control 1 ed by the lowest common denominator of past development. With regard to other developments along "H" Street, all of the post-1969 projects meet the current standards with the exception of two developments -- one located at the southwest corner of "H" Street and Broadway, and the other located at the southeast corner of "H" Street and Third Avenue. In both of these cases, the depth of the 1 andscape screeni ng on "W Street was reduced below the 10 ft. standard in order to accommodate street widening requirements which only surfaced after the projects had received discretionary approval. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: . 1 . That a hardshi p pecul i ar 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 (-\-/37fs ~. Page 4, Item 16 Meeting Date 9/20/88 hardships justifying a variance. Further, a previous variance can never have set a precedent, for each case must be considered only on its individual merits. The site is a level, rectangular, 7,481 sq. ft. corner lot with no unique circumstance or hardship not shared by other corner lots subject to exterior sideyard setbacks. 2. That such vari ance is necessary for the preservati on and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors. The granti ng of the vari ance woul d represent a speci al pri vi 1 ege not enjoyed by other corner lots in the same zone or vicinity. 3. That the authori zi ng of such variance wi 11 not be of substanti al detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter or the public interest. . The granting of the variance would result in inadequate screening of the parking area, and a negative visual impact on adjacent properties. 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. Approval of the vari ance woul d be contrary to the aestheti c val ues embodied in the Chula Vista General Plan. WPC 5517P . the City CO'J:lcil of Chula Vista, Czllifornia Dated f p~~a ;.< _I ~.1 R5~ !.} J) '"