HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/19/1988, 4 - CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO AMEND THE ZONING REGULATIONS CONCERNING MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE ALLOWED FOR CHURCHES, SYNAGOGUES, AND TEMPLES. 4��mIIlp��IyIIIIIIIIIIAIIUIII V1 r MEETING DATE:
Ipm��� ul
City or SM tuts osispo JUL 19 B
OWGN COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER
FROM: Michael Multari, Community Development Director '•-
SUBJECT: Consideration of a request to amend the Zoning Regulations
concerning maximum lot coverage allowed for churches,
synagogues, and temples.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
After considering the Planning Commission recommendation,
original staff recommendation, and public testimony, approve
or deny the proposed amendment.
DISCUSSION
The applicant is preparing preliminary plans for expansion of church
facilities. The applicant believes that coverage requirements in
many zones are unnecessarily restrictive as applied to church
development, and proposes an amendment which would be less
restrictive. The amendment would allow churches to exceed the
maximum coverage allowed for other uses, subject to approval of a use
permit.
On June 15, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
amendment on a 4-3 vote. Planning staff recommended that the
amendment be denied.
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
A negative declaration has been approved for the project. No
significant fiscal or other impacts are expected.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION
Regulations affecting the development of churches will be unchanged.
The applicant and other church developments would have to comply with
existing coverage limits unless variances were approved.
����►�►>III►�iIIII�Iip��u►I����U city of San tuts OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 2
EVALUATION
Existing Regulations
Churches are allowed in every zone except C/OS, C-T, and M. No use
permit is required in the 0 or C-R zones; a Planning Commission use
permit is required in the R-1 zone; and an administrative use permit
in the other zones.
The minimum parking requirement is one space per four occupants in
the largest assembly area in all zones except C-C, where the
requirement is reduced .by half.
Setback requirements are the same as required in the respective zones
for other uses. Setbacks vary from 20 feet (R-1, R-2) to 0 feet
(C-C, C-R) .
Maximum coverage requirements are also the same as required for other
uses:
R-1: 40% 0: 60% C-C, C-R: 100%
R-2 : 50% C-N: 75% C-S: 75%
R-31 R-4 : 60% PF: 60%
A variance is required for exceptions to coverage requirements.
Most existing churches in the city are located in residential zones,
although at least two are in the C-C zone. The applicant's church is
in the R-2 zone.
Appropriate Development Intensity
Maximum coverage limits (along with minimum setbacks and maximum
height limits) serve to restrict development to an intensity which is
compatible with the intensity and types of other uses allowed in the
zone. In addition to providing a limit on square footage of
development, these limits insure that a certain ratio of developed
area to open space is maintained in each zone.
Most development projects do not approach the maximum building
coverage allowed, because required parking and setbacks take up most
of the lot. Small residential projects, projects with off-site
parking, or with floor area built above a parking level, are
virtually the only exceptions.
Typical churches also fit this pattern, with setbacks and parking
occupying 50% or more of the site. Grace Church is an exception
because little parking is provided on the site. Its existing
facilities (including three houses used as classrooms) consist of
approximately 24, 000 square feet of buildings on lots totaling 39, 200
square feet (61% coverage) . The parking required by current
standards would be 88 spaces; fewer than ten spaces are provided
on-site.
y
1111111111RIPPIIcity Of San 1U1S OB1SPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Differentiation Between Churches and Other Uses
As noted above, developments of any type which approach the maximum
coverage limits are the exception, and churches do not appear to be
significantly different from other types of uses in this regard.
In residential zones, for example, development of schools or
convalescent hospitals could raise issues of coverage and intensity
of development very similar to those posed by churches.
The applicant states that typical church developments are different
in several ways which justify a different standard for coverage:
1. Churches have different hours of operation than most other
non-residential uses. While the typical church schedule
mitigates some impacts of the intensity of church
development - such as traffic generation and parking demand
- it has the opposite effect with regard to noise
generation.
2 . The overall intensity of use is lower. On a week-to-week
basis, churches may generate less traffic and have fewer
users than other uses located on a parcel of similar size.
No data on this issue has been submitted.
3 . The pattern of site development is different. Typical
church buildings are larger than other buildings allowed in
the R-1 zone, and parking requirements are much higher.
Churches may also tend to have greater setbacks than the
minimum requirements. Differences between multi-family and
non-residential development allowed in other zones are not
as clear-cut; neither staff nor the applicant has done a
detailed study regarding building massing, floor area
ratios, privacy concerns, etc.
4. The architectural style is different. Church designs often
emphasize the attractiveness of the building exterior and
surrounding grounds.
5. The service to the community provided by churches makes it
important that church development remain feasible.
Widespread support by community residents and the positive
social impact of church activities are factors cited by the
commission and applicant. since expansion or establishment
of a church is complicated by the scarcity of large parcels
and the nonprofit nature of the institutions, relaxation of
coverage limits may significantly affect feasibility of some
church developments.
The applicant also proposes that decreased parking coverage (due to
the use of off-site parking) may justify increased building
coverage. Present zoning regulations make no provision for such a
trade-off; development of amendments which allowed that to occur
would be a complex process affecting many uses other than churches.
������i�►i��u�flllllll� �ll�lll city of San tins osispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Summary
The existing Grace Church facility is legally nonconforming with
regard to parking and setbacks, as well as coverage. Each of these
factors tends to limit the church's expansion options in some way,
and lack of on-site parking contributes to coverage problems. These
limits do not prevent maintaining existing church facilities, and
similar limitations apply to other nonconforming buildings and other
types of uses.
The majority of the planning commission believe that the differences
cited by the applicant, noted above, justify allowing flexibility for
church .coverage limits on a case-by-case basis through a use permit
review. Staff did not believe that there are significant
differences between churches and other uses which would justify
different treatment regarding coverage.
ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission's recommendation is noted above. At the
commission hearing, the applicant's representative and
representatives of other church groups spoke in support of the
proposed amendment. No other public testimony was received.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The council may continue the amendment for further study, with
direction to staff and the applicant regarding additional
information needed. There is no deadline imposed by law for
acting on this application.
2. The council may deny the application, based on a finding that the
applicant has failed to demonstrate differences between
development of churches, synagogues, and temples, etc. , and
development for other types of uses, which justify different lot
coverage requirements.
3 . The council may approve the amendment subject to the findings
noted in the attached draft ordinance as recommended by the
planning commission, or may adopt a modified form of the
ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION
After considering the Planning Commission recommendation, original
staff recommendation, and public testimony, approve or deny the
proposed amendment.
Attachments:
Draft Ordinance
Applicant's Statement
Draft Planning Commission Minutes, June 15, 1988 (Forthcoming)
Initial StudyER 15-88
Resolution Denying Amendment
_q-y
ORDINANCE NO. (1988 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING
SECTIONS 17.24 THROUGH 17.48 OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS
REGARDING MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE ALLOWED FOR CHURCHES,
SYNAGOGUES, AND TEMPLES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held hearings to consider
an amendment to the zoning regulations regarding maximum lot coverage allowed for
churches, synagogues, and temples; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed text amendment is consistent with
the general plan; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment has been evaluated in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and the city's Environmental Impact Guidelines, and a negative
declaration has been granted by the city; and
WHEREAS, the proposed text amendment promotes the public health, safety, and general
welfare;
WHEREAS, the intensity of use typically associated with churches, synagogues,
temples, etc., is significantly less than that which is associated with other uses
allowed by the Zoning Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the patterns of site development and the architecture of churches differs
significantly from those of other uses; and
WHEREAS, the council desires to allow for the reasonable, efficient and economically
feasible development of property for use by churches, synagogues, temples, etc., in a
manncr which is nonetheless compatible with surrounding uses; and
WHEREAS, the maximum lot coverage ratios specified in the Zoning Regulations may be
unnecessarily restrictive as applied to development of churches, synagogues, temples,
etc. on certain sites in certain zones.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
y-s
Ordinance No. (1988 Series)
Page 2
SECTION 1. That the text amendment to Section 17.16.030 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code (Zoning Regulations) attached hereto marked Exhibit "A" and included
herein by reference, be approved.
SECTION 2. After City Council review and consideration, the determination of the
Community Development Director to approve a negative declaration is hereby confirmed.
SECTION 3. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with
the ayes and noes, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage
in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in said city, and the same
shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its said final passage.
A copy of the full text of this ordinance shall be on file in the office of the City
Clerk on and after the date following introduction and passage to print and shall be
available to any interested member of the public.
INTRODUCED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, at its meeting held on
the day of 1987, on motion of
. seconded by and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
y-�
RESOLUTION NO. (1988 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING
AN APPLICATION TO AMEND SECTIONS 17. 24 THROUGH 17. 48 OF
THE ZONING REGULATIONS REGARDING MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE
ALLOWED FOR CHURCHES, SYNAGOGUES, AND TEMPLES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held
hearings to consider an amendment to the Zoning Regulations regarding
maximum lot coverage allowed for churches, synagogues, and temples;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the applicant has failed to
demonstrate differences between development of churches, synagogues,
and temples, etc. , and development for other types of uses, which
justify different lot coverage requirements; and
WHEREAS, the maximum lot coverage rations specified in the Zoning
Regulations do not appear to be unnecessarily restrictive as applied
to development of churches, synagogues, temples, etc. on certain
sites in certain zones.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San
Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. That the text amendment to Section 17. 16. 030 of the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (Zoning Regulations) attached hereto
marked Exhibit "A" and included herein by reference, be denied.
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote: '
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Resolution No. (1988 Series)
Page 2
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of
1988.
Mayor Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
City Clerk Pam Voges
APPROVED:
(24r,
City Administrative Officer
ILV— =7
City Attor y
Community Development Director
y-8
EXHIBIT A
17.16.020 Coverage
A. Definition
"Coverage" means the area of a lot covered by structures, including accessory
structures, expressed as a percentage of the total lot area. Any part of a deck,
balcony, or eave which is less than thirty inches from the ground shall not be included
in the determination of coverage. Portions of such structures which are more than thirty
inches from the ground shall be included in the determination of coverage only if they
arc more than thirty inches from a building wall; otherwise they shall not be included.
(Sce Figures 5 and 6.) (Ord. 1006 Section I (part), 1984; Ord. 941 Section I (part),
1982; prior code Section 9202.5 (D))
B. Application and Exceotion
Maximum coverage shall be as provided in the specific property development standards
for the various zones in Chapters 17.24 through 17.56 inclusive, except that the Planning
Commission may grant exceptions to maximum coverage for churches. synagogues, temples.
etc., in any zone. subiect to approval of a use permit.
(;*Itc �k 11110111 %.,1 k A wl.f it"
98 IWO
�,ni !.to i Im,l):I I .u:;, n i:i ii3 1111
fclrPlumr ,[i;
source: ew/geno4f#1/graceslo
Date: June 8, 1988
To:Planning Commission
c/o Greg Smith, Associate Planner
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
fe:Proposed Text Amendment
Dear Commissioner, The reason for proposing the teat amendment is
twofold. First, I have been retained by Grace Church of San Luis
Obispo to study the possibility of consolidating their activities and
facilities. As a result of this study, we discovered that unless we
"fit" neatly within the current zoning regulations in regard to
coverage, etc. ; there would be no dialogue with the planning
department in regard to what we felt were unique and special
circumstances surrounding the proposed consolidation-circumstances
that we felt offset current guidelines.
Second, from a general planning viewpoint, the current zoning
regulations seem to treat churches as any other building in our
community. It is our belief that churches are different in terms of
their significance to our community and that the current zoning
regulations are an oversimplification of the often diverse and unique
circumstances surrounding church improvement_
What we are asking for in regard to the text amendment, is that
churches be given a chance to present their proposed improvements on a
case-by-case basis through the Use Permit Process. We feel this
review is warranted because of the unique nature of church use and
because of the diverse circumstances surrounding church improvements.
Then the Planning Staff , the Planning Commission and/or the City
Council could make decisions that reflect a more thorough
understanding of each church project.
The heart of this tent amendment, is that church use is unique and
that it is difficult to "lump" the diverse circumstances surrounding
church improvements into one set of rules or guidelines. Some of
these diverse circumstances include:
a. UNIQUE SCHEDULES-Churches have unique schedules. They are often a
perfect compliment to other uses.
y�o
Text Amendment Lette
Page 2
b. LOCATION IN THE CONTROLLING ZONE-The location of a piece of
property in its controlling zone is often diverse and difficult to
generalize its impact and relationship to neighboring zones.
c. MULTIPLE ZONES-Church properties are often surrounded by multiple
zones, yet the controlling zone sets the standards of development.
d. OFF-SITE PARKING AGREEMENTS-The current development guidelines do
not recognize. off-site parking agreements in the computation of
coverage whereas when the parking is on-site it is computed as part
of the overall open space. It is our belief that off-site parking
does contribute to the "appropriate pattern of open and developed
spaces" of our neighborhoods. The reality is that these off-site
parking agreements do contribute to the open space of the
neighborhood.
e. CONSOLIDATION OF PROPERTIES-The current development standards seem
to want to inhibit and/or discourage churches to consolidate their
facilities and activities. As a result, many churches are finding
themselves spread out over one or more pieces of property over two
or more city blacks.
I would ask: for your support on this proposed text amendment. I don' t
believe we are asking for a special privilege. We are simply asking
that church projects be reviewed at a level in which the unique nature
of church use and the diverse circumsta:.ces surrounding development of
churches can be appropriately reviewed.
If you stop and chink about it, churches are a very special part of
our community . It has long been known that one of the first major
signs of deteriorate within our major cities has been the restriction
to growth and/or death of small neighborhood churches such as the ones
in our community.
As it stands today even in San Luis Obispo, churches are increasingly
faced with the prospect of having to move if there are plans to expand
and/or improve their facilities. This is due in part, I believe to
the indiscriminate nature of zoning regulations in regard to the
significance of church use. From a current zoning "viewpoint" ,
churches are processed as just any other business. It is our hope
that this proposed text amendment will make a small , but significant
impact on how churches are "processed" .
Respectfull
G eg Wi elm, Architect
-17'-11
MAGAPE
diiziSTIAN P.O. sox 123
FFLL(7V9-Jip San Luis Obispo
VViCTOAy CaGforma 93406
IN JESUS!
Tim Morbitzer, Pastor (805) 541-0777
"A family church that God's love(agape) is budding!"
June 15, 1988
Planning Commission
County of San Luis Obispo
County Government Center
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
Dear Planning Commissioners:
I am writing this letter on behalf of the congregation of
Agape Christian Fellowship of San Luis Obispo. Having
searched for our own permanent facility for the past five
years, we are very familiar with the frustrations churches
face with the high cost of land and restrictive zoning
regulations.
We support the position of Grace Church in their request for
zoning text amendments which could increase the maximum
coverage allowed for church use ` in R-2 zones. Our reasons
are as follows:
1) Churches, temples and synagogues are unique uses and
should be given special consideration by Planning
Departments. Each development plan should be regulated
by conditional use permits instead of restricted by a
blanket zoning classification because each site usually
has its own unique set of circumstances. You do not find
rows of churches like you find rows of condominiums or
commercial buildings .
2) Church use is allowed in 10 of the 13 land use
categories with maximum coverage ranging from 40% to
100%. Church activity and intensity of use does not
vary based on what zone it is allowed in as do other
types of commercial or office uses. "Church use" is
"church use" regardless of zoning and should not be
restricted based solely on the land use category it
falls in. If the major neighborhood concerns of
parking and aesthetics are controlled by use
RECEIvE� permits, why should one church be allowed to use 50%
of its land in its R-2 location and another church
JUN 151988
cnY b San Ly1;OD.6PQ
Commun,ty Development �_/�
Page 2
Planning Commission
June 15, 1988
use 100% on its commercial location when they might
only be two blocks apart? This should be evaluated
on a case by case basis.
3) Savin 50% "open space" just for the sake of "open
space does not seem like a logical reason to
restrict church •development. Courtyards , planter
boxes, walkways , etc. can be more aesthetically
pleasing than parking lots and water-intensive
lawns. It makes better sense for churches like Grace
Church to be allowed to build classrooms or
counseling offices where people are helped, then to
maintain a lawn - especially when there is a large
park across the street.
4) Churches, temples and synagogues are the foundation
of a morally healthy society. Local government
should support their needs as an investment in the
well-being of the community .
In summary, we ask you to support the amendments to the
zoning text which would allow the maximum coverage of land
use by churches to be regulated through use permits. This
would be determined on a case by case basis, regardless of
the specific land use category, by the Planning Department
and/or Planning Commission.
Thank you for your consideration and your efforts in
building a strong community.
Sincerely,
Mike Sparrow
Assistant Pastor
MS/ps
/3
city of San IU1S OBISpo
���i,►I�lilllil�i���;"Il,�ll�li.i
a INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SITE LOCATION C 1 tV-wi de APPLICATION NO. ER1 5-88
PROJECT DESCRIPTION rviend Zoning Regulations to allow increased coverage by churches in
residential and certain commercial zones subiect to use oermit aoaroval .
APPLICANT Grace Church
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
X NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
PREPARED BY Greg Smith Associate Planner DATE April 21 . 198E
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION: DATE 4-27-88
Negative Declaration
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
II.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ............................... .................... Inna*
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH.......................................... I%nna
C. LAND USE ....................................................................... IJnna
D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .............................................. Nnna
E. PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................ "0118
F. UTILITIES........................................................................ Engle
G. NOISE LEVELS ......................................... .......................... Nona
H. GEOLOGIC 8 SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS .................... Ilona
I. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS.............................. .................. Nan.
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY .............................................. game
KPLANT LIFE........................................... ........................... Nena
L. ANIMAL LIFE.................................................. ................... WaAA
M. ARCHAEOLOGICAL!HISTORICAL ................................................... [lone
N. AESTHETIC ...................................................................... Done*
O. ENERGYIRESOURCEUSE ........................................................... Hone
P. OTHER ............................................... . .......................... Hone
III.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
'SEE ATTACHED REPORT SIM
��y
ER 15-88
Page 2
11. Potential Impact Review
A. Community Plans and Goals
The Land Use Element of the General Plan states that "Nonresidential uses which serve
neighborhood needs (convenience shopping, schools, parks, day care centers, churches,
lodges, and similar public or semipublic facilities) should, however, be considered
conditionally compatible with residential environs, subject to evaluation of site
development plans."
Allowing increased coverage for church projects could affect compatibility with nearby
low density residential uses, and with some nonresidential uses in the office and
Neighborhood Commercial zones. The significance of the proposed change is affected by
the following factors:
1. Churches will continue to be subject to use permit requirements, which involve
evaluation of development intensity with input from members of the public who believe
they might be affected.
2. Relaxation of coverage requirements is allowed by current regulations (in limited
cases) if a variance is approved.
3. Churches have tended to be few in number, and typically dispersed throughout the
community. Cumulative impacts would be somewhat mitigated if this pattern continues.
Evaluation: Significant impacts are unlikely to occur.
N. Aesthetic
A church with significantly greater coverage than surrounding properties might be viewed
as aesthetically incompatible with them.
Evaluation: Significant impacts are unlikely to occur, for reasons discussed in Section
II.A above.