Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1988/01/12 Item 17 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item , 17 Meeting Date-~~f~8f~~ ~`j~-~~ • r N ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCC-88-14 and ZAV-88-6: Appeal from denial of request to establish church offices and fellowship meeting place at 110 Third Avenue - Calvary Chapel Resolution /`3f~~~ Denying the appeal on PCC-88-14 Resolution Denying the appeal on ZAV-88-6 SUBMITTED BY: Director of Pla Wing'(*'~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) This item involves two applications: (1) Conditional Use Permit PCC-88-14 to establish church offices and a fellowship meeting place within a single family dwelling at 110 Third Avenue in the R-1 zone, and (2) Variance ZAV-88-6 to vary from the lot size, setback and fencing standards required for churches in residential zones. The Planning Commission denied the applications on November 18, 1987, and the applicant has appealed. An Initial Study, IS-88-27, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on November 6, 1987. The Environmental Review Coordinator concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended that the Negative Declaration be adopted. RECOMMENDATION: That Council affirm the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal on PCC-88-14 ands ZAV-88-16. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On November 18, 1987, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 5-0 with two Commissioners absent, denied both applications. DISCUSSION: Adjacent zoning and land use North R-1 Single family South R-3 Single family East R-3 Fredricka Manor West R-1 Single family ~ ~ Counc~I of f;y iie City Ci~,~ia Vita, California ------- D;~~tcd l IIUE:i Y IJ ~~_~, ated ~~~ ~ _ ..__ b;~ tie Cite G~ouncii ~of Chula Vista, Caiifornla Dated • Page 2, Item 17 Meeting Date /-ice-~ g Existing site characteristics The site is a 9,400 sq, ft. single family parcel located in an R-1 zone with an existing 1,340 sq, ft. 3-bedroom, 2-bath residence. The lot measures 71 ft, wide by 132 ft, deep, with 6 ft, high solid wood fencing along the southerly and westerly (rear) property lines, and 5 ft. high chain link fencing along the northerly property line. The dwelling is situated on the front portion of the lot with setbacks of 20 ft, in the front, 58 ft, in the rear, and 10 ft. on the sides. Single family residences to the north and south are separated from the subject dwelling a distance of 40 ft, and 15 ft, respectively. The property has two curb cuts on Third Avenue; one 25 ft.-wide along the northerly boundary serving a two-car garage and parking pad, and another 12 ft.-wide along the southerly boundary serving an RV parking pad. Proposed use The proposal is to convert the existing dwelling for use as church offices, family and career counseling and small evening meetings. The church has a total congregation of 140, and will continue to hold Sunday morning and • evening services in rented space at Southwestern College; they have no permanent location at this time. Please see the attached letter from Pastor Schock outlining the proposed use of the site. There would normally be two and usually no more than three staff on site between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., including the pastor, his secretary and occasionally his assistant. Counseling sessions involving only individuals and families -- no groups -- would occur between 10:00 a.m, and 4:00 p.m., with one evening session per week lasting no later than 8:30 p.m. Small leadership meetings and prayer sessions involving approximately 10 parishioners would be held in the evening between 7:00 and 9:30 p.m. The Pastor estimates there would be no more than 3 to 4 cars on-site at any one time during the day. No estimate of evening parking demand is indicated. It was disclosed at the Commission hearing that the church had recently occupied the premises and is currently using the dwelling for the purposes described above. ANALYSIS: Churches are listed in the Municipal Code as "Unclassified Uses" which allows for their use in any zone subject to review and approval of a conditional use permit. The Code further provides that "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...and shall have side yard and rear yard setbacks of at least twenty feet and a front yard setback of at least twenty feet." Page 3, Item 17 • Meeting Dat /-/~ ~ ~ These standards have been adopted in order to allow for the location of such institutions in close proximity to the residents they serve, provided there are adequate protections such as site area, separation and access to ensure the preservation of the character and quality of the residential living environment. The property in question meets many of the standards in that it is located on a collector street, it has some solid fencing on the southerly and westerly property lines, and it has conforming front and rear setbacks. The issue is really under what circumstances a church, or certain aspects of a church operation, should be allowed in an R-1 neighborhood. In this case, on the plus side, the site is on a busy collector street, Third Avenue, near "D" Street, across the street from Fredricka Manor and adjacent to R-3 zoning to the south and the church operations, as described are fairly limited in size. On the negative side, are concerns with the lot size, parking and relationship to the adjoining residents. The lot size, 71'x132', is fairly typical of a standard R-1 lot; presently, there is not sufficient on-site parking for the proposed up to 10 member evening group study sessions; and the immediate adjacent properties, while zoned R-3 are developed with single family homes. On balance, the staff concludes the lot is not of a sufficient size and the use could adversely affect the surrounding single-family properties. In terms of precedent, according to our records the City has processed only • one application for church use of a standard single family lot. The application involved a request for temporary quarters to serve a 9-member congregation at 422 East Oxford Street, and was unanimously denied by the Planning Commission in 1969 on the basis of the size of the property and the resulting potential for adverse impacts on adjoining residents. The applicant contends that the property is reasonably priced and will allow the church to forgo renting office space in favor of an equity investment to marshall funds for the later purchase of a larger site suitable to accommodate all the functions of the church. While we sympathize with the church's predicament, we do not believe this overrides the factors noted above, and the Municipal Code specifically provides that "financial difficulties ... are not hardships justifying a variance." For reasons noted above, we recommend denial of the request based on the findings included herein. Should Council wish to approve the request, staff should be directed to prepare appropriate findings and conditions to be brought back to Council. FINDINGS: Conditional Use Permit 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. A standard R-1 single family lot is inappropriate far non-residential use. These ancillary operations of the church can be conducted by right (office/counseling) or by conditional use permit (fellowship meetings) at several conveniently located commercial sites in the same general vicinity. ,f Page 4, Item 17 • Meeting Date /-i,~-frg 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 use does not have adequate site area or separation from adjoining residential uses to provide reasonable assurance that on- and off-site activities associated with the operation will not adversely affect the character and quality of the residential living environment. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The use does not meet all of the standards specified in the Municipal Code for churches. 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. The granting of the conditional use permit would not be consistent with General Plan policies regarding the adequacy of church sites and the • protection of existing residential neighborhoods. 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. There are no discernable hardships related to the property, and the financial condition of the church is not a hardship 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. The granting of the variance would represent a special privilege in that no other church or or ancillary church operation has been allowed on a standard R-1 lot. • Page 5, Item 17 • Meeting Dated % ~ ~~--~ ~ 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 property standards in question have been adopted in order to protect the character and quality of the residential living environment. The site in question does not have adequate site area or separation to provide reasonable assurance of such protection. 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 would not be consistent with General Plan policies regarding the adequacy of church sites and the protection of existing residential neighborhoods. FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable. WPC 4576P • l ~~ ~~ -.~ ~ll ~~ ~-~.~~. C17Y OF • . CHULA VISTA +~ FINANCE DEPARTMENT March 10, 1988 Fred F. Jiacoletti Fiscal/Contracting Officer County of San Diego Housing & Community Development Dept. 7917 Ostrow Street San Diego, CA 92111-3694 ~~X~~GL ~~ ~-~~~.~ 1~~~0 RE: CDBG REIMBURSEMENTS COUNTY CONTRACTS 25702/25017 Dear Mr. Jiacoletti, Enclosed is the back-up material you requested to support the City of Chula Vista's reimbursement claims dated 3/3/88 on County contracts 25702 & 25017. In the future, I will send the required copies of invoices and/or staff reimbursement authorizations and apologize for the initial oversight. You advised me over the phone that the County document we have, including the one approved by the Board of Supervisors, has an incorrect • contract number written as 25071 and that your accounting department established the number as 25017. As you know, even the signed agreements between City and County, including the recently amended agreement, refer to the County contract number- 25071. In light of this I would appreciate receiving written confirmation of the number correction. Copies of your letter should be sent to our City Clerk, Engineering and Community Develop- ment Departments. ~Tharrk~'"you for your assistance. Sincerely, ~~ ~- Carole L. French Accountant cc: +Jim Logue, Comm. Dev. Jennie Fulasz, City Clerk Roberto Saucedo, Engineering • 276 FOURTH AVENUE/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010/(619) 691-5051 ' COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT • Item,-~7 Meeting Date-83 /- j~--~ 8' ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCC-88-14 and ZAV-88-6: Appeal from denial of request to establish church offices and fellowship meeting place at 110 Third Avenue - Calvary Chapel Resolution Denying the appeal on PCC-88-14 Resolution/ ~ y Y/ Denying the appeal on ZAV-88-6 SUBMITTED BY: Director of Pla ning~~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) This item involves two applications: (1) Conditional Use Permit PCC-88-14 to establish church offices and a fellowship meeting place within a single family dwelling at 110 Third Avenue in the R-1 zone, and (2) Variance ZAV-88-6 to vary from the lot size, setback and fencing standards required for churches in residential zones. The Planning Commission denied the applications on November 18, 1987, and the applicant has appealed. • An Initial Study, IS-88-27, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on November 6, 1987. The Environmental Review Coordinator concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended that the Negative Declaration be adopted. RECOMMENDATION: That Council affirm the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal on PCC-88-14 ands ZAV-88-16.-~ BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On November 18, 1987, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 5-0 with two Commissioners absent, denied both applications. DISCUSSION: Adjacent zoning and land use North R-1 South R-3 East R-3 West R-1 by th° City v.;~_~~, ,;? oi: Chula Vista, (;....,: ~r.;ia 'I ted ~~ __ II Single family Single family Fredricks Manor Single family ~ ~~ ~ ~- ~~-~~I -,;y the City Council of Cp~ula Vista, California pat~~d ~ ~ ~---- I by the City G~ouncil ~of Chula Vista, California Dated Page 2, Item 17 • Meeting Dated /-ia.-~8' Existing site characteristics The site is a 9,400 sq, ft, single family parcel located in an R-1 zone with an existing 1,340 sq. ft. 3-bedroom, 2-bath residence. The lot measures 71 ft, wide by 132, ft, deep, with 6 ft, high solid wood fencing along the southerly and westerly (rear) property lines, and 5 ft, high chain link fencing along the northerly property line. The dwelling is situated on the front portion of the lot with setbacks of 20 ft, in the front, 58 ft, in the rear, and 10 ft, on the sides. Single family residences to the north and south are separated from the subject dwelling a distance of 40 ft, and 15 ft, respectively. The property has two curb cuts on Third Avenue; one 25 ft.-wide along the northerly boundary serving a two-car garage and parking pad, and another 12 ft.-wide along the southerly boundary serving an RV parking pad. Proposed use The proposal is to convert the existing dwelling for use as church offices, family and career counseling and small evening meetings. The church has a total congregation of 140, and will continue to hold Sunday morning and • evening services in rented space at Southwestern College; they have no permanent location at this time. Please see the attached letter from Pastor Schock outlining the proposed use of the site. There would normally be two and usually no more than three staff on site between 8:30 a,m. and 5:30 p.m., including the pastor, his secretary and occasionally his assistant. Counseling sessions involving only individuals and families -- no groups -- would occur between 10:00 a.m, and 4:00 p,m „ with one evening session per week lasting •no later than 8:30 p.m. Small leadership meetings and prayer sessions involving approximately 10 parishioners would be held in the evening between 7:00 and 9:30 p.m. The Pastor estimates there would be no more than 3 to 4 cars on-site at any one time during the day. No estimate of evening parking demand is indicated. It was disclosed at the Commission hearing that the church had recently occupied the premises and is currently using the dwelling for the purposes described above. ANALYSIS: Churches are listed in the Municipal Code as "Unclassified Uses" which allows for their use in any zone subject to review and approval of a conditional use permit. The Code further provides that "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...and shall have side yard and rear yard setbacks of at least twenty feet and a front yard setback of at least twenty feet." Page 3, Item~17 • Meeting Date--~-2~f8f9~-- 1-/~-&~ These standards have been adopted in order to allow for the location of such institutions in close proximity to the residents they serve, provided there are adequate protections such as site area, separation and access to ensure the preservation of the character and quality of the residential living environment. The. property in question meets many of the standards in that it is located on a collector street, it has some solid fencing on the southerly and westerly property lines, and it has conforming front and rear setbacks. The issue is really under what circumstances a church, or certain aspects of a church operation, should be allowed in an R-1 neighborhood. In this case, on the plus side, the site is on a busy collector street, Third Avenue, near "D" Street, across the street from Fredricka Manor and adjacent to R-3 zoning to the south and the church operations, as described are fairly limited in size. On the negative side, are concerns with the lot size, parking and relationship to the adjoining residents. The lot size, 71'x132', is fairly typical of a standard R-1 lot; presently, there is not sufficient on-site parking for the proposed up to 10 member evening group study sessions; and the immediate adjacent properties, while zoned R-3 are developed with single family homes. On balance, the staff concludes the lot is not of a sufficient size and the use could adversely affect the surrounding single-family properties. In terms of precedent, according to our records the City has processed only • one application for church use of a standard single family lot. The application involved a request for temporary quarters to serve a 9-member congregation at 422 East Oxford Street, and was unanimously denied by the Planning Commission in 1969 on the basis of the size of the property and the resulting potential for adverse impacts on adjoining residents. The applicant contends that the property is reasonably priced and will allow the church to forgo renting office space in favor of an equity investment to marshall funds for the later purchase of a larger site suitable to accommodate all the functions of the church. While we sympathize with the church's predicament, we do not believe this overrides the factors noted above, and the Municipal Code specifically provides that "financial difficulties ... are not hardships justifying a variance." For reasons noted above, we recommend denial of the request based on the findings included herein. Should Council wish to approve the request, staff should be directed to prepare appropriate findings and conditions to be brought back to Council. FINDINGS: Conditional Use Permit 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. - A standard R-1 single family lot is inappropriate for non residential use. These ancillary operations of the church can be conducted by right (office/counseling) or by conditional use permit (fellowship meetings) at several conveniently located commercial sites in the same general vicinity. Page 4, Item 17 • Meeting Date /-i~-£~g 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 use does not have adequate site area or separation from adjoining residential uses to provide reasonable assurance that on- and off-site activities associated with the operation will not adversely affect the character and quality of the residential living environment. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the. code for such use. The use does not meet all of the standards specified in the Municipal Code for churches. 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. The granting of the conditional use permit would not be consistent with General Plan policies regarding the adequacy of church sites and the • protection of existing residential neighborhoods. 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. There are no discernable hardships related to the property, and the financial condition of the church is not a hardship 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. The granting of the variance would represent a special privilege in that no other church or or ancillary church operation has been allowed on a standard R-1 lot. • 3. That the authorizing of such variance will detriment to adjacent property, and will not purposes of this chapter or the public interest. Page 5, Item 17 Meeting Dated ~ - /~--~ 8' not be of substantial materially impair the The property .standards in question have been adopted in order to protect the character and quality of the residential living environment. The site in question does not have adequate site area or separation to provide reasonable assurance of such protection. 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 would not be consistent with General Plan policies regarding the adequacy of church sites and the protection of existing residential neighborhoods. FISCAL IMPACT: Jot applicable. WPC 4576P •