Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/02/1988, 2 - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. R1372 ���M��RH�INllllll�u I "J r san WgN2 ENE: IA��U�� c� o lues oBispo ITEM NU COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT _i FROM: Michael Multari, Community Development Director Prepared by: Greg Smith SUBJECT: Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 81372 The council's first hearing on this item resulted in a 2-2 deadlock. The matter was continued to tonight's meeting to allow a vote by the full council. The original staff report is attached. a -� city of San lues OBlspo MEETING DTE: JUL ,s e COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MN NUMBER FROM: Michael Multari, Community Development Director�,',J 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. �����►��IIIIII�I�� ���III city of san tuts oBispo =WMI96 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 O 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-3, 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. ��� ►►�Nllll�lp►�►��III city or san tins osispo 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. city of san tuis 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 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 manner 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: ,2�4 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 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: � Q 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: City Administrative Officer City Attor y Community Development Director � -9 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 cave 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 are more than thirty inches from a building wall; otherwise they shall not be included. (See Figures 5 and 6.) (Ord. 1006 Section 1 (part), 1984; Ord. 941 Section 1 (part), 1982; prior code Section 9202.5 (D)) B. Application and Exception Maximum coverage shall be as provided in the specific property development standards for the various zones in Chawers 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. subject to approval of a use permit. —A? J�1 *Gir-c",\\it 111 Id I I I. �i ctlo 9X-(Ni,>\t fPcl S:111 Luis ONJ)!, d1l'.!nia 1t;iul source: ew/genoff#i/graceslo Date:June 8, 1988 To:Planning Commission c/o Greg Smith, Associate Planner 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Re:Proposed Text Amendment Dear Commissioner, The reason for proposing the text 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" neat.ly 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-io Text Amendment Letter Page 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 blocks. 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:ices 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 with.in 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 GAN I Ln$oluspo AGAPE ChZiSTIAN P.O. Box 123 FELLowship San Luis Obispo viCTORy California 93406 I14 Esus! Tim Morbitzer, Pastor (805) 541-0777 "A family church that God's love(agapO is building!" 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 fr 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 RECEIVED permits, why should one church be allowed to use 50% of its land in its R-2 location and another church JUN 151988 CM of San Luis QbisM Community Dw dCOmom 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 bse 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 1�� city o� san lu'Js amspo i�;ilflllllill����!`"II!'ll�li� A INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SITE LOCATION Ci ty-wi d APPLICATION NO. ER15-88 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Amend Zoning Regulations to allow increased coverage by churches in residential and certain commercial zones subject 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 . 1988 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION: DATE 4-27-88 Negative Declaration SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS I.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING IL POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS .................................................... [Innes* B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH.......................................... I4nna C. LAND USE ........................................................................ 11nne D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .............................................. Nnne E. PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................ ':0^e F. UTILITIES........................................................................ None • G. NOISE LEVELS .................................................................... Mona H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS .................... IInma I. AIR QUALITY AND WINO CONDITIONS............................................... idp^a J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY ............................................... Hone KPLANT LIFE...................................................................... 110ne L. ANIMAL LIFE..................................................................... IUnAp M. ARCHAEOLOGICALIHISTORICAL ................................................... Unne N. AESTHETIC ...................................................................... ;done* O. ENERGWRESOURCEUSE ........................................................... None P. OTHER ..............._.......................................................... Hone III.STAFF RECOMMENDATION 'SEE ATTACHED REPORT ` ER 15-88 Page 2 II. 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 ILA above.