HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1979/02/06 Item 06• CITY OF CHULA VISTA •
COUNCIL AuENDA STATEMENT Item No. 6
For meeting of 2/6/79
ITEM TITLE public hearing - Consideration of appeal of Plarning Commission denial of
variance request PCV-79-3 for reduction of front yard and exterior side yard
setback, at 256 "I" Street in the R-3 zone - Firstwest Devco
SUBMITTED BY Director of Planni
ITEM EXPLANATION (4/5TH'S VOTE REQUIRED YES X NO )
A. BACKGROUND
1. On December 27, 1978 the Planning Commission voted 5 to 2 to deny a variance
request for a reduction in the front yard requirement from 25 feet to 15 feet on "I"
Street and a reduction in the exterior side yard requirement. from 50 feEt to 10 feet on
Del Mar Avenue in order to construct a two story, 11 unit condominium project on a
15,822 sq. ft. corner lot located at 256 "I" Street in the R-3 zone. The staff had
recommended approval of a 15 foot setback for single story portions of the building and
25 feet for two story portions along both streets. The staff had also recommended that
the building height be limited to two stories.
2. The applicant, Firstwest Devco, is appealing the decision of the Planning
Commission. The appeal contends that the Planning Commission's decision was based on
the question of whether the existing R-3 zoning was appropriate rather than whether the
reduction in the required setback was justifiable. The applicant has revised the request
to conform to the staff recorr,men,~tion of 15 foot setback setback for single story portions
and 25 foot setback fcr two story portions of the building.
3. On December 27, 1978 the Planning Commission adopted the Negative Declaration on
IS-79-26, which is forwarded to the City Council.
B. DISCUSSION
1. Adjacent zoning and land use:
North R-1 (across "I" Street) Single family dwellings
South R-1-15 Single family dwellings
East R-1 & R-1-15 (across Del Mar) Single family dwellings
KGLthm R-3 r "'TDay care nursery
(continued on supplemental page)
to i11 tS l I J
Agreement Resolution Ordinance Platte Notification Li:s~t~
Elevations and
Other t1aann ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: At~ached X Submitted on
inu es o~t Nlanninq Commission hearing. _ -
Letter
FINANCIAL IMPACT
SThFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings contained ire Section D of this report, adopt a motion granting
the appeal and approving a reduction in the front and exterior side yard requirements for
the property located at 256 "I" Street as follows:
a. Minimum setbacks for both streets shall be 15 feet for single story portions of
the building and 25 feet for two story portions;
b. Building height shall be limited to t~;°o stories.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On December 27, 1978 the Planning Commission voted 5-2 to deny variance application
. PCV-79-3.
. COUNCIL ACTION
~+S-~~' ~
~ AGENDA ITEM N0. 6
Meeting of 2/6/79
Supplemental page No. 2
2. Existing site characteristics.
The subject property is a level corner lot developed with a single family dwelling
located at the southwest corner of Del Mar Avenue and "I" Street. The site is almost
square with 125 feet of frontage along "I" Street,and 127 feet along Del Mar Avenue.
By definition (Section 19.04.136) the frontage along "I" Street is the front yard (being
the narrower) and the Gel Mar Avenue frontage is the exterior side yard.
3. Streets.
Both "I" Street and Del Mar Avenue have a right of way width of 80 feet. The distance
between the property line and the face of curb is approximately 24 feet on both streets.
The parkway is 14 feet wide on "I" and 16 feet on Del Mar Avenue. The property line is
located 6 feet behind the 4 foot wide sidewalk on "I" Street and 4 feet on Del Mar Avenue.
4. Setbacks.
The front yard setbacks along both streets are established by the BuilUiny Line Map
which takes precedence over the setback regulations stipulated in the zoning ordinance.
The 25 foot setback on "I" Street was established in 1949 when the Building Line Map was
adopted. The 50 foot setback along all of Del Pear Avenue from "I" Street to "J" Street
was established in 1956. The majority of homes on Del Mar F,verue are set back 50 feet
from the street, with some encroachments of older homes to within 40 feet. The typical
setback along "I" Street is approximately 40 feet.
5. Proposed developrrrent.
The applicant has revised his original plans incorporating the setbacks as recom-
mended by the staff. The 11 unit condominium project will consist of 2 cne-bedracm units
and 9 two-bedroom units in the combination one and two story structures. The 11 units
will require 18 offstreet parking spaces which have been provided. The proposed develop-
ment is subject to review and approval by the Design Review Committee as well as the
approval of a tentative subdivision map. The project must also meet the requirements of
the recently adopted condominium ordinance (Ordinance rr1841).
C. ANALYSIS
1. Suitability of ~cning.
In the early 1970's as part of the program to bring about a state of consistency
between zoning and the General Plan, Council reviewed the zoning in this area. At that
time Cor.incil rezoned a number of properties on the north side of "I" Street from R-3 to
R-1 on the basis of small lot size and single family development. The area on the south
side of "I", however, was left in the R-3 zcne because of the larger lot size on that
side of the street. A multiple family development and a day care nursery subsequently
were developed on the south side of the street. At this point, staff feels that the area
is fairly far along in transitioning from single family to multiple family use and that
the central question is one of allowing the transition to continue in a way that will
not be overly intrusive into the single family area to the south.
2. Lot coverage.
The maxir~um allowable lot coverage in the R-3 zone is 50%. Based on this percentage,
the applicant would normally be permitted to cover 7,911 sq. ft. of the lot. However,
becau:;e of the required setbacks, only 6,060 sq. ft>, or 38% of the lot, may be covered.
It is clear to staff that the required setbacks are burdensome in light of the R-3 zoning
on the property. However, the City has a responsibility to make an apartment structure
as compatible as possible with the character of the area. Certainly any knowledgable
owner of a corner property must expect a considerable area to be devoted to open yard
spaces. Thus, the question in staff's mind becomes one of determining how much of a
variance should be granted.
3. Setbacks.
The setbacks originally requested by the applicant are in accordance with the regula-
tions of the R-3 zone and would be allowed if it were not for the special setbacks
required by file Building Lir,g Map. However, because other dwellings in the immediate
vicinity are also subject to the same setbacks as the subject property, a significant
reduction would adversely affect the adjacent properties. As indicated earlier, the
majority of the properties along Del Mar Avenue adhere to the 50 foot setbacK, but a
few horr.es are located as close as 30 feet from the street. The visual effect of the
95~~
• AGENDA ITEM N0. 6
Meeting of 2/6/79
Supplemental page No. 3
area is one of openness and spaciousness. The original development plans would have
resulted in a 108 foot long, two story structure along "I" Street, creating a substantial
visual intrusion. The setbacks suggested by the Planning staff, and concurred with by
the applicant, provide for a gradual stepping back of the building, which coupled with
various offsets will bring the structure into better scale with the street scene.
4. Compromise solution.
All things considered, a 15 foot setback for single story portions of a building and
25 feet for portions higher than one story seems to be a reasonable compromise between
the need to maintain a reasonably open character and the need to allow reasonable R-3
development. Such a setback is consistent with the setbacks required in R-3 zones along
collector streets and with past actions of the Planning Commission and City Council to
limit corner lots in new subdivisions to one story construction. The single story
portions of the building would then be a minimum of 39 feet from the face of curb and the
travelled portion of the street. The substantial parkways add an additional 4 to 6 feet
of landscaping between the sidewalk and the property line to provide an opportunity for
ample landscaping. The setbacks proposed by staff would provide an area on which to
build eq~;al to nearly 10,000 sq. ft., which should supply the applicant an opportunity
to work out solutions to parking and open space problems.
D. FINDINGS
1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the
orarcer exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in developing the
property for the needs of the owner consistent,zvith the regulations of the zone; but
in this context, personal, family or financial difficulties, Zoss 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.
Under the present setbacks, the applicant is restricted to an area of only 6,060
sq. ft. (38% of the property) where units may be constructed. A reduction in the
required setbacks will provide greater latitude in locating structures and is more
closely aligned with present R-3 setback regulations established in the zoning ordin-
ance.
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 irc the
same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege
of .+.he recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors.
There are no other corner properties in the vicinity in the R-3 zone so that, if
granted, the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege. It would
simply recognize the peculiar circumstance of this property which finds itself
saddled with setbacks that are approproate under R-1 zoning, while the property is
zoned R-3.
3. That the authorizing of such variance raiZZ not be of substantial detriment to
adjacent property, and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter Or the
public interest.
The 15 foot setback for single story structures will help to maintain the open
feeling of the neighborhood while recognizing the R-3 zoning on the property. The
25 foot setback for two story portions of the structures will permit the applicant
to effectively develop the site.
4. That the authorizing of such variance z~iZZ not adversely affect the General Plan
of the City of Chula Vista or the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
The reduction as recommended will not adversely affect the General Plan.
q.~ ~ 6