HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1995/10/25 (2)
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 1
Meeting Date: 10/25/95
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: PCM-96-1O; Request to exceed the Floor Area Ratio on
47 of the 135 lots within the Los Palacios subdivision located on the south
side of North Rancho del Rey Parkway between Paseo Burga and Bayona
Loop in Rancho del Rey SPA II - Centex Homes.
The proposal is to exceed the 0.55 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) on 47 or 35% of the 135 lots within
the Los Palacios subdivision being developed by Centex Homes in Rancho del Rey (RDR) SPA
II. The property is located on the south side of North Rancho del Rey Parkway between Paseo
Burga and Bayona Loop.
The RDR SPA II Planned Community District regulations provide that an exception to the FAR
may be granted by the Zoning Administrator under site plan approval. The Zoning Administrator
is unwilling to grant an exception of this magnitude, and thus the matter has been referred to the
Planning Commission for resolution.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the proposal is exempt from
environmental review as a Class 5 exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution
PCM-96-1O denying the request as submitted but authorizing the
Zoning Administrator to approve an exception to the FAR
standards for a maximum of 20 lots, or 15 % of the total lots
within the project.
DISCUSSION:
Floor Area Ratio
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the relationship between the area of permitted floor space in a
structure and the area of the lot on which it is situated. The FAR is expressed by a numerical
value obtained by dividing the total area of a structure by the area of the lot on which it would
be constructed and is used to determine the relationship between the bulk or mass of a building
and lot size. The size of the lot thus determines the maximum floor area of a building which
may be constructed on that lot when the FAR formula (FAR X Lot Area) is applied.
Regulations dealing with lot sizes, yard sizes, and height and bulk of structures, such as FAR,
Page 2, Item --L
Meeting Date 10/25/95
are aimed directly at the qualities that collectively contribute toward "livability". They attempt
to insure light, air and privacy; afford safe recreation space for adults and play space for
children; reduce fire hazards and, in general, maintain a healthful and safe environment.
Site Characteristics
The RDR SPA Ii PC District regulations designate the property for conventional single family
development, with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet and a minimum average for all lots
of 6,000 square feet. The FAR is 0.55.
The property has been subdivided into lots which average 6,700 square feet and range from
5,120 to 15,311 square feet. The site has been graded and is partially improved with streets and
infrastructure. Adjoining properties are designated/developed as follows:
North:
Single family "estates" on lots of 9,600 and 12,000 square feet, with an FAR of
0.50
Permanent open space
Conventional single family on minimum 5,000 square foot lots with an FAR of
0.50 (RDR I)
Vacant conventional single family approved for 6,000 square foot lots with an
FAR of 0.55
South:
East:
West:
Proposal
As noted, the proposal is to exceed the 0.55 FAR on 47 of the 135 lots within the project. The
project has three floor plans with total floor areas, including garage, of 3,254 square feet (34
units), 3,372 square feet (47 units) and 3,629 square feet (54 units) on lots ranging in area from
5,120 square feet to 15,311 square feet. Specifically, the requested exceptions break down as
follows:
FAR No. of Lots FAR No. of Lots
0.56 4 0.61 5
0.57 3 0.62 6
0.58 3 0.63 10
0.59 2 0.64 7
0.60 1: 0.65 ~
0.56-0.60 16 0.61-0.65 31
Centex Homes offers the following points in support of their request (see attached letter dated
September 27, 1995):
1. All building setback and coverage requirements are met.
Page 3, Item -L
Meeting Date 10/25/95
2. Required 15 foot deep minimum rear yards are exceeded--the applicant is providing
rear yards of 19 feet or deeper in all cases.
3. 20 of the lots are adjacent to pennanent open space which lessens the impact of the
proposal in at least one direction.
4. Slopes, some in excess of 20 feet, provide vertical separation for many of the lots
inside and adjacent to the subject property and thus assist in softening the visual impacts of the
excess FAR.
5. The applicant is providing a three-car garage on many units. There would be fewer
FAR deviations if two-car garages, the minimum required, were provided throughout.
6. The applicant has developed a quality architectural package which far exceeds the
minimum standards required within this Rancho del Rey SPA.
Also see additional infonnation from McMillin Companies dated October 19, 1995, in support
of Centex's request. This infonnation was received too late to be summarized in this report.
Analvsis:
The Zoning Administrator has historically used the FAR site plan exception in recognition that
a developer's desired mix and placement of models throughout the project may result in the
placement of some larger models on some smaller lots. The provision is intended to be used
sparingly to accommodate the exception rather than establish the rule.
In this instance, the project has not been designed to fit the lots. The 0.55 FAR would allow for
a total floor area of 2,816 square feet on the smallest (5,120 square feet) Los Palacios lot.
However, the smallest unit is 3,254 square feet, which would require a lot of over 5,900 square
feet to comply with the maximum FAR--the project contains 41 lots under this size.
ln staff's view, this plan is an attempt to fit a considerable number of large houses on lots which
are too small to accommodate them. Although not as rigid as a zone variance, findings must be
made to justify the deviating from City standards. Staff cannot offer the rationale with which to
justify the substantial variation from the FAR standard being followed by all other developments
in the Rancho del Rey Specific Plan, as well as other newer planned communities in the City.
It should be noted that the FAR in planned communities is already higher than for lots in Central
Chula Vista, which are restricted to 0.45 for lots of 7,000 square feet or greater and 0.50 or
3,150 square feet, whichever is less, on lots of less than 7,000 square feet.
FAR requirements were fonnulated to provide light and air between dwellings and create street
scenes in which the building mass and bulk are in scale with the lot size. Approval of this
request would be contrary to these objectives of the City's FAR provisions and the precedent
set by the approval of this request would put pressure on the City to approve future requests in
similar situations in communities presently being planned and developed in the eastern territories
Page 4, Item ~
Meeting Date 10/25/95
of the City utilizing the PC regulations.
Conclusion
Staff has indicated to the developer that an adjustment of the FAR on as many as 15 % or 20 of
the 135 lots could be approved by the Zoning Administrator under the authority in the PC
District regulations, however a 35% deviation would require Planning Commission
consideration. Staff believes approval of a number higher than 15 % would subvert the intent of
the FAR and PC regulations.
Attachments
Resolution PCM-96-1O
Locator Map
RDR 11 Land Use Districts
RDR 11 Site Utilization Plan
RDR PC District Regulations
Los Palacios Unit Elevations and Floor Plans
Los Palacios Lot Coverage/FAR List
Applicant's Letter to the Director Dated September 27, 1995
Letter from McMillin Companies dated October 19, 1995
Disclosure Statements
Site Plan (full size)
(m:\home\planning\
RESOLUTION NO. PCM-96-10
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION DENYING A REQUEST TO INCREASE THE
FLOOR AREA RATIO ON 47 OF THE 135 LOTS WITHiN THE
LOS PALACIOS SUBDlVISlON IN RANCHO DEL REY SPA II
WHEREAS, a duly verified application to appeal a decision of the Director of Planning
was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on October 10, 1995 by Centex
Homes, and
WHEREAS, said application requested that the Commission pennit an increase in the
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for 47 of the 135 lots within the Los Palacios subdivision in SPA II of
the Rancho del Rey Specific Plan, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said
application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication
in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 1000
feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing, and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely October
25, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning
Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed, and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has found that the project is exempt
from environmental review as a Class 5(a) exemption pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act, and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
hereby finds that the proposal is not consistent with the PC District regulations in that the
number of lots and extent of FAR increases is well beyond that which could be considered an
exception and therefore would subvert the intent of the FAR standards.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION rereby denies 111:
request to increase the FAR for 47 lots, but authorizes an increase in FAR for a maximum of
20 lots subject to the approval of a site plan by the Zoning Administrator.
That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the applicant.
pcm-res.pc
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNlNG COMMlSSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this day, the 25th day of October, 1995 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
WilJiam C. Tuchscher, III Chairman
Nancy Ripley, Secretary
cup-res
I~~
---- ------ -
- RANCHO DEL lfEY
11@~ ......-;-..,
" ,i ff. 7ir '.r(0)A . ~: ::::::.:' !
~. " ~/ ,/ft.' f:.t._+1j2 E~:~i:t~ ~
~~~VI \i'~ .. ,.
~. \' -, ,'.",
,,=" '1'f,
'-L
(7;' ~
\ iI'
~~~16). 'L' I L
'r.!...... i (Afr-5)
(.$1" I
0,." ,
" ....,~_l
OV/"
/v'
f1w ~ ~~I I ~~~\)c_~~~ ~ -~- ')-...
:d ~ ~. ~ ----...: ~.-" .J I....., ~ >;
~~ l.l.J:I:i.J. -.,::::~ ,Jr-.:.>.'. ~~
~I m \T~)' . "'-...'"\" 1-1,-,...... ~ ~
., "> . \ "~ _ ';;'::':::' .:. ..-.... '\~.- Wi,^^- AJ; "', p. '"
~.,... ~ ,"'n,\ \~\ ff\ f-{.}-1 ~ ~~ ~ ~h-ID'. t ~ 17,....
\'(~'\ i... ".. ' .,. r '. q:-.." -=--. <:.x VAY
~.~., , ~~~\\ PC ~~~Ir-;;
_ ~2-;:~' ':-tg;-,7I.~(~ J?~--,- i :~~~ "
Y1.IJ:t' ~:}? >~ tj.~~. &~~~ ..I: 2\ )' ~
~l/A~.36 )!::~ ~~ /~ "'Ii"
;: ~:...' ; t::: J:;':j~,y;{..~............~~.~ ~
'-" '::f,'r < ,,... ff ~ '-J I L-Y/.'<:
'S'::'f.; .......~ ~ '(
0/j ~ . ~O;:;J r:.~ .~ ~,~ T1\\\\\\l!j
'Vl1. ~ (~~.... ~"hG~ .L-"
\ :";.~7 N:j f\~-/'( ;(.Th ~~ G
....." " '-'.: U'<... 10 ~
~~ YJ,
~~~ ~ -~,.:
___ _......... =--., ~<:i>-
-~'[-1.l'):t!. ':j,~~ I..c......: ..'....
'~.~Y; . .......
I/fii~~ -' ~~.
tt~W ""
~ ' 8 "~?~, ~.~ J .......~
't.?:-," n~~,~/ ,,\, ~ ~. '''''1' ,
II( '" ./ ---' c.= ~.~
y_/' '\ ---- - .
, ,,}f: ,;;" I
PC I;;i .. ;.;:I 1M
.m """ _..
PC
.~
~;
~A
-,I"'. 'w,\
,....,..
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT CENTEX HOMES PROJECT DESCRJPTlON:
C) APPLICANT, MISCELLANEOUS
PROJECT Southsl de of Request: Appeal of Decision of Director of Planning
ADDRESS: Rancho Del Rey Parkway
SCALE, FILE NUMBER,
NORTH No Scale PCM - 96 - 10
Q)~
cn()
:::> . t:
00
"0.-
c:O
~
.....J
(I)
-
OJ
-
en
W
16
:;::
<=-
(I) ()
:2 ".:
en-
(I) .22
0:0
... N (>)
1 I 1
0 (I) (I) (I)
() () ()
Z OJ & OJ
c( a. a.
-I (/)- (/)- (/)-
e: .Q () ()
c: "t: c: "t:
W (I):: (1)- (l)U;
(/) a. .22 a. .22 a. ._
O(/) 00 00 00
Q.I-
0:0
;:)-
Q.O:
-II- ... N (>)
c(!!2 I 1 I
-0 (/) (/) (/)
Ow 0 0 0
w(/)
5;;:)
(I)
~
~
J>- ~
'0
If
(I)
'5
<=-
.- ()
(/) .-
.....
(ijCi)
~c
(I) >-
'0-
'0; 'E
Q) OJ
o:u..
o
z
c((/)
-II-
-It)
::$0:
1-1-
z(/)
W-
OO
1i5w
W(/)
0:;:)
(/)
0:
w
a:
u..
es
~."" --;;//'~ '/ ,i / i ,- _---.::J__::_:/ l-:__ _"
01?J ..... /1 :r---.- -.1_____ j l.' __.
..lb. ri rr r---'-----~--===- --{ ~-- ,
\O'~~~ \"., ,:~\\~ rr~~ -=;'c~
", '.......i,,/ ',."... ""! '. ."'\
--.......,.. --......... ~':-=-: - /~ \
\ ,,) ....-...-T-.. \.
\ I " \
, '--~ w J \ \
\ '_ 0: g (/) \ \
\ ~ J! 0: I \
\,ch\, 1:\
o 1\ \ :
\ /' I 1 \ ,..,__....../)
\ \-,,<< \ ~/'" .
, . .. .c_' 1 ---d -- ... I
", 0...J ~ \ ch i
\ I ~ 8\ 0 j
\. , \: '\
" \ ~ (/)
d ~ \' 0: i,
\ ,
~ ~ \
--" \
\ \" \.
V... \. ,J
\ ch
\ 0 ~ \.
" \. 0: I' ...1 \
, \"6- (/) ..
\ ~ /10\
\ ". ,
. ,..", .,/ .._..__.~--_.._---
\ _..-.-~ ..L:-.----
L..______'___ \ \
- \, '-.-
_J
VII-3
~J ~
~ ~
.. ~
, R
;,;
.: 0", ~
..
.. ~ ..
N ~
0
z
. -
g
0
c
~
~
"
j
!EJ
o
N
:0
:c
~
w
0.
~
~
&
~
~o:
OJ
~i
uj
]
~
<t:
[I
~~
~
~
Ii ~ ! i
n ~ ~ ~
i
i
~ ~
. H
I ~
~
en
,---,. I) "n II
---" '- - \/ 't
- ',- - / / ------ : (. '-.!, ~ ,
'-'-, "I -, "r.-' ,
. \ ,! .r I C:: , ' .
"---') ::::::::----:-.J1
'-... - '/ ' -----=-: ' II!
j '-"
\
\
,l
i
I
c
/-
'- -'./
.\
~ ,
,~)
Ii
i,' ____ ';"
-....._~--- \,"
/ _: -' ;,;',
---
,. ----, - --.
.,' '----- ------, r I
,-. ----..../ '. I _
'I _.; ,,'.
'-::-'::::~..'.,'r
\ \ "-- "'--...i
". . ~- } / .-
\, - :'.
'v _. /
~
\
,
~J ~
U~ :=
~ ~
- -
~
~
EJ
"'
-
:c
:2
x
w
Q.
1
~
~f
C5j
~
~
~
1
0:
<t
(I
.
.
.
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
.
1.
Lot area (in net OOO's S.F.)
minimum
minimum average
Land Use District
RE RS
8
15
70
80
100
40
.50
20
20
20
15/10
10
10
20
28
15
5.0
6.0
50
50
90
45
.55
15
10
15
10/5
10
10
15
28
15
2 2
(garage) (garage)
*May be modified with Site Plan approval
**May be increased to 35 feet with Site Plan approval
2.
Lot width (in fee)
minimum
minimum average
3.
Lot depth (in feet)
4.
Lot coverage (percentage)
5.
Floor Area Ratio*
6. Front yard setback (from
Public Street ROW)
a) To direct entry garage
b) To side entry garage
c) To main residence
7.
Side yard setback
a) ~o adjacent residential lot
(min. total/one side)
b) Distance between detached
residential units
c) To adjacent street (corner lot)
8.
Rear yard setback
9.
Building height, feet (maximum)**
(2-1/2 story maximum)
accessory bldg., maximum
.
10. Parking spaces per unit
(11/11/88 )
VIII-4
c6l. ------------I
:J[l.
C
:; "'..---.-,.-..--
'i"H'r '0
r-7lt:';':~ :, ~,~
r [;:t:~; I L-lJ
(J ~;!I. DO I
"Jj,i"uJ..
" -J
.~
~ _.: '-:", I
:f'~f ,.
;~~:,~ r~
,
~
"
<
w
"
'~""-~""'Q
. cC::LI
"-':":'~'c_);,
'.J 'H~
.r:~L':
"
~
V)
o
U
<C
-1
<C
~ c...
~ ~ V)
Ow 0
~ LiJ
[[ u --.J
i
i@)
~
v
.. ,
'" .
E ~ I
~-- r ,~
I~ i. j~
E.& ~ F
~..c f J~
~~i tl
~!
"
z
~
Ii
'"
u
.,.
e-
~
'>
"
'5
I
U
z
o
VS
'>
15
o
'"
15
z
::i
,
z
o
r=
"
~
o
Q.
~
o
u
e-
"
e-
if]
~
~
~
e-
z
U
~ l-
v; z
to 0
~ a:
~ LL
iI'
~
I
U
~
~
I
~
~
~
N
Iji
~
~
:J
..I
~
~
~
.
~
t.~~'
1
j ,
,
r'
I ;1:
; ~.
, <( ~
~ "'- ~
r
i
[
,
I
L
._ 'I ~
~I
i~~
~,
:>:<;;:
9gg
;::~9!
"'"!
,
:~I'
j 'g:
--!
'I'
~:
1S1~
::::!
o
~
~
"
v
~
, ,
"
;;
"
"
~
L
~I
~I'
""I'
~I
.
~I
ii'
~:-
~
1:
....~
--1;1-
~:
-,/"
~
l
n
r
'-
<,
~-.
;::--
"
.b
)
i~~
QO"
~~~
II:
I.
w::-
t
1
0,
"'
gJ
::;
;.-
=
~
6
"I
'"
Iii]
~I
~!
;;
il
~
~(~."
~\ ;...: "t
~ '-.-j
is
g~ -
~fl ;'
~
t
d
",'
13'
",I
N.
-'
;:::,
81
z
:)
:r;
;;
B
~
is
z
<
v.
</)
O~
-'"
U2
<0
...Ju
<(<
o...~
z >
:)</)<
Z05
< I
C:.....JU
z
o
'"
<
~
o
c.
~
o
u
~
<
~
:J
:5
~
::s
~
z
:::;
0'.
--I
,
1
~-~~
;1
^
ni
: ri
r:=r
[--1
~.. -- ~
.. ,'!Bt C
~'.;f..'~.-I ['.! - .... -1,
\'-:"1! .J
- :,;.~?! !!
~-~"t~ t I -J..
~~~~::F.l-='=~-<l--~'
'1: --
flfl
'[n(h'<'<~(](](~(
:1:1:!ilill:lil:!!!!lllj
:llllll:!li!!!i~iiii: I
',(,SS(H,s<'((S('~('('?1
::~:~:~;:;:~;:i:i:iM:~i:i:i::
:;:!:1:~:1:1:~(,i:,1:1:!:1:~!:!:!:
1] "" {{{{CC[ ---1
.f:['i)({{{::n:~{:;:i:i:': I
(nn:c'(:(:(c,c',nJ;
, (,<iUHF,((('(({'\
)~~:1:!:!:!:!:!:1:!!~!:~f~~
('i:i:iHHH:<iH'
I{HHHHH\
,({{{,;,?;,;,g,;,
'('{'(nH'c'c'c'
'('('cn,<,<,<,<'
~:(\~(':'t](H'i
, ;~<(n:<1
,,',',<,'>,,1
nu,{{!
sc,c,q;C:1
C,S(C.JU!
(((h'('(~ ....
(n:c:cn~
~ (::< ((
mnr~
~ r
--'w: -
I,~ .'1
I~- -:tiLL
-
~
r 0
,
r
,
I'f' .
...", - J ;,,,.,_J?~'
iHrc,CH<(i;(; ,'[
~,
';';'
,','
~
L
1
.-
-4
~ ~
,
J
"
<
"
"
"
I
~
~
IL -_
....I.'''n~..
so,! " 'I"
"'Ice!; Lll,IIII.
..(,,eil
!/;c,c,ci: i
j;;:iH:i::i
_'i;:{{.,;{{1
{)[H],'c'c'cl'
,::(:(nh:c:{!
NHHn,,{!
i,{HHH,(:(.'
.:H';{{'i{';'is:\,1
':'{HH'c'c'c'c' I'
':Hn'c'c'("'2;.
"(:(:{:{:c:cn:~i:<(:
!HH,c,c,c:(,1,1.
" :~(n(i.WJ.:~';'~:"~,,,,,'-
:! r,~ilIJjHlHi.~,
1;
~ ! ~
Ii--i I
,-,
.
".'.:;.
r:~,r
~@
! N i"
, '
,
"
z
o
"
~
'5
~ I
E <..i !
N.f; !
~ on I i~
u H
~.~ iF
">,J'!
~< ~ ~I
,
~i'
"
~
w
"
z
0
VI
;;
[5
0
SO
[5
z
:Ji
,
z
0
eo
'"
~
VJ 0
0 " ~
~
z 0
U ~ u
5' i"
<( '" '"
--' u !a
z <( ",- ~
0 0... to;
0 C ;; ~
~ ~
" V> " ~
z 0
;S w ~ >-
< Z
--' u tj
_.........
vi
t;
~
i>'
'"
I
':i
'"
I
"
~
N
'I'
~
~
~
~
~
S
o
~
Z
o
ex:
LL
--r'
.'
.'
F~"J
kJli
rt~c ~
,. ,t: el:';,
'-""f..
T:: ...1l
I. .,. ._
3
I
l
.J
'~!~
z'~
"I;
..D..
r'
~
::;1
"
"
"'
;;;I
"1
~I
L.+'
....>=:
~~
2'
"
i:
-'l-'J
s
:;::
7:~
~~
H
o r
. <'...-1
~<I"
. eX_
;~~ ~I "
=:""1 <I
.. - :.L_
;;3:: .J'"
~I ~!~
~I
d
7.1
'--
~l
- ~ C
~I:
~I:
~I
.:,rlS -q
,~I, , .
c"r' "I ="."
8zIc =1 22;::';1
~~I' ~I ~;j'5II:'
"~r I ~ I ~~s:
~ :;:=!
o ~I
'.
.
........
'-'U'
i~i,
:<:;
d rl
..
~
c
S ~LJ
<-I
7::1" ~
'-.
-t ~~I .
~
~
a"
;:1'
~
~
~ /-,
ffi! ~ q~
13 \'--~_// :
c-
:3
:g
l'
~~
~:- ~ ::
~~ ~ ;,
=~.
;::< ~
~
=1
:;;..,
.:.::1
:::1
sr
"
"-
S\
~
N
0>
=
J
1:1
d
~I
~,
1
I
I
=1
>.
::1
~i
51
z
C
'"
>
c
c
u
C
z
5:
<.rJ
0;1
-'"
U2
<CO;
-' '",
<( <'
cc..~
0> >
;'CJ)<
;;;02
C::.....JG
z
c
"
<
"
"
o
'"
"
~
:?
~
:::
r
Z.
U
,-5(':,
08
1JfC- /2 --
~O
;;/ d
/
/
~/
~
.,
,
/
/
/
/
{3 R
',\ ~ R'
~----,--'
,
~~Ji:'~~' "~ID: ---
~tPJ.;:,;.;-.,
.~~1~;:~ ICl
<~~if!E" 18
\rrt'i. ·
t.""_.....,,,
m;~;':
Fi-
~r_:" ,< -_.,
lj
..
-
",._~,
C-=J
EB
L":-1
[un:
L.
':, ::~ ,-.-
'i: .. 1_ --
i . -
;--"J.II -
1. - l(i'.:.~t":
_~-"'_ 1--1-.. .-
"
I
o
"
"
.
W
"
~~:OO;"I: El~2 ~~
It ,
';, .
, ,
~ ,
.::~i: 8:! r
"/:~L"Y:CL" .--"jf Ea- I
_._":';""11.,,...,. . I
.>l~"~1 - L ,
j:;/~;'!I EB I
'r.t:: :-II' II "" - '
- CJ
1";'''':1'
!tr~~dJ~l~.i
~c:''':':=,.~~=:~:;J I
'00 ....-'-.".=1 'J
f ~ j f-h~~:J. --:
t-I ~ 1
I "~---=J"'---='-"
!:=-:~~'"-<'8-,--L L,--J
,,-=~.:_.~.::::;:::' ,':~:
EB
!(N\
i\."i.f
i
~
U
,
~
".
~~ I
. "J I,
I.e h
E." J'
",.~; ;
...,..1:: ~ ~I
3~i ti
r
~,,',,~.
==--~
"
"
~
z
0
0;
"
0
0
8
0
z
:;;
z
0
;::
"
~
V'J 0
~
0 " "
Z 0
U ~ u
ii; ~
<( ....
:;' "
...J u ....
:D
<( ,,' ~
0- .... :s
~
" ~
V'J " GS
0 :J ....
Z
I U
...J u
.
~,'E;', .., '-'~~
,.. ~}: ~~I~;.J:-nr:-~ - ~I~
J fe" i .. "
V !Fh=
r iL.-~"
>1' I "
"I
11' z::
:;:~ I ~ ~:
~-
!
~I
~I!'."
"
=:.'
e'
^.
il
'I
;;"
=1'
",
"~
<,
i,~ p
~.
~:
2d
~,
o~
g~
~,
;i,
.;i;-
~I ~:
71;-
i~I+'U--
:i:
,
.D;. .d
IJ
.'
,
~I ,IT' ~.:: -q
~!; ';;;1, .
~
~I .~! I
"t IJ
n
J:J
,~~!~
~~!:
...,
.
.J
~
~
~
ffi "'C I'
'" C0
0
,..
u
0
~
~
"
RE ~
.f:,,;t::
~f ~ ;:
~"E ~ .
::;.<<
~
co
>
'=
0-
~I
~
(/)!
~i
I
1
1
J
<I
H
::1
H
'>
z
o
Q5
0-
is
C
S
'"
t
51
z
<
~.
<./')
0;;
-~
Uo
<(~
-'''
<( <'
c...t;;
'>
.-, rJ') <
~O:)
~ -J.;:)
z
o
"
<
~
o
~
~
o
'"
"
<
~
~
:5
~
<;5
~
3':
"
i LOT PLAN I_~ST iL9-.9_R 1ST & 2ND I
LOT #, AREA (SF) TYPF . 3-CAR GARAGE (SF) + GAR. (SF)
1 5,761 1 I 1,958 3,254
2 5,506 2' 2,175 3,372
3 5,878 3 2,163 3,629
4 5,639 I 2 2,175 3,372
5 7.418 3 2.163 3.629
6 12.623 2 2.175 3,372
7 7.546 1 1,958 3,254
8 7,459 3 2,163 3.629
9 I 6,642 2 2,175 3,372
10 5.397 1 1,958 3,254
11 5,400 2 2,175 3,372
12 5.140 1 1,958 3,254
13 i 6.279 2 2.175 3,372
14 6,402 2 2.175 3.372
15 I 5,723 1 I 1,958 3,254
16 5.974 1 1,_958 3,254.
17 I 6.068 1 1,958 3,254
18 I 5,969 3 2,163 3,629
19 10,492 3 2,163 3,629
20 7.441 3 I 2,163 3,629
21 6.126 2 2.175 3,372
22 7,389 3 2.163 3,629
23 6,8~_1 2,163 3,629
24 6.472 I 1, 1,958 3,254
25 I 5,818 I 2 I 2,175 3,372
26 i 5,926 I 1 I 1.958 3,254
~~ i ~:~;~ ! ; j~___ ~:~k;==- __ __ ;:~_;~
29 12,968 3 2.163 3,629
30 6,182 I 1 I 1,958 3,254
31 5.871 I 1 I {958 3,254
32 I 5.832 I 3 I 2.163 3.629
;~ ;:-~-~ I ~ -!_u_u_-~:~~~____T ;:~;:
35 i 7.016 2---r 2,175 3,372
36 I 7,574 . 3 i 2.163 3,629
37 6,264 2 I 2,175 3,372
38 6.104 1 1,958 3,254
39 13.893 3 2.163 3,629
40 i 10,4Ht6 2 I 2,1}53.,~72
41 I 13,742 3. __2.163 3,629
42 I 15,311 2 2___175 3,372
43 9.193 3 2.163 3,629
44 8.618 3 2,163 3,629
45 5,616 1 1,958 3,254
46 6,412 2 2,175 3,372
47 5.120 1 1.958 3,254
48, 5,120 1 1,958 3,254
49 5,120 1 1,958 3.254
Prepared by MAY Group
Page 1 of 3
LOT FLOOR
JVERAGE AREA RATIO
34.0% 0.56
39.5% 0.61
36.8% 0.62
38.6% 0.60
29.2% 0.49
17.2% 0.27
25.9% 0.43
29.0% 0.49
32.7% 0.51
. 36.3% 0.60
40.3% 0.62'
38.1% 0.63
34.6% 0.54
34.0% 0.53
34.2% 0.57
32.8% 0.54
32.3% 0.54
36.2% 0.61
20.6% 0.35
29.1% 0.49
35.5% 0.55
29.3% 0.49
31.7% 0.53
30.3% 0.50
37.4% 0.58
33.0% 0.55
39.1% 0.61
25.3% 0.43
16.7% 0.28
31.7% 0.53
33.4% 0.55
37.1% 0.62
35.5% 0.59
38.4% 0.64
31.0% 0.48
28.6% 0.48
34.7% 0.54
32.1% 0.53
15.6% 0.26
20.8% 0.32
15.7% 0.26
14.2% 0.22
23.5% 0.39
25.1% 0.42
34.9% 0.58
33.9% 0.53
38.2% 0.64
38.2% 0.64
38.2% 0.64
SPA2TRY4.XLS 10nt95
Rancho Del Rey - SPA II
Lot Coverage Report
J.N. 0017-3
LOT PLAN 1 ST FLOOR 1ST & 2ND LOT FLOOR'
LOT #1 AREA (SF) I TYPE + 3-CAR GARAGE (SF) + GAR. (SF) COVERAGE AREA RATIO
50 I 6,579 2 2,175 3,372 33.1% 0.51
51 9,598 3 2,163 3,629 22.5% 0.38
52 6,499 2 2,175 3,372 33.5% 0.52
53 6,432 1 1,958 3,254 30.4% 0.51
54 6.266 2 2,175 3,372 34.7% 0.54
55 6,017 1 1,958 3,254 32.5% 0.54
56 5,771 2 2,175 3.372 37.7% 0.58
57 5,200 2 , 2,175 3,372 41.8% 0.65 .
58 5,200 1 1,958 3,254 37.7% 0.63
59 5,400 2 I 2,175 3,372 40.3% 0.62
60 5.~1 i 1.958 3,254 37.7% 0.63
61 5,200 2 i 2,175 3,372 41.8% 0.65
62 5,366 2 2.175 3,372 40.5% 0.63
63 5,891 I 3 i ?,163 3.629 36.7% 0.62
64 5.965 1 ! 1,958 3,254 32.8% 0.55
65 I 6,150 I 2 I 2.175 3,372 35.4% 0.55
66 , 6,23~1 1 1,958 3,254 31.4% 0.52
,
, 32.7%
67 i 6,624 I 3 i 2,163 3,629 0.55
68 I 7,404 +-H 2_,163 3,629 29.2% 0.49
69 I 8.648 _2.175 3,372 25.2% 0.39
~1__8.c16~'_3.~ 2._1_63___ 3,629 26.5% 0.44
71 . 8,276 3 2.163 3,629 26.1% 0.44
c-2-1--+-8,31 0 2 2,175 3,372 26.2% 0.41
73, 8.003 3 2.163 3.629 27.0% 0.45
74 ! 7.707 2 I 2,175 3.372 28.2% 0.44
75 I 7.714 3 , 2,163 3,629 28.0% 0.47
;
76 7,750 2 i 2,175 3,372 28.1% 0.44
77 I 7.7~7 3 , 2.163 3,629 27.8% 0.47
78 7,831 2 , 2,175 3,372 27.8% 0.43
79 I 8,018 3 2.163 3.629 27.0% 0.45
I I
80 8,570 2 , 2,175 3,372 25.4% 0.39
I
81 I 8,537 3! 2.163 3,629 25.3% 0.43
82 I 9.58~_~-+--_2.175 3.372 22.7% 0.35
83 I 7,485 ~ 3, 2,163 3,629 28.9% 0.48
84 8,037 , 1 I 1,958 3,254 24.4% 0.40
, I
85 I 8,321 ! 3 1---2'.163 3.629 26.0% 0.44
,
86 I 1- a_. 27.9% 0.46
7.022 1 I 1,958 3,254
87 I 6,911 3 2,163 3,629 31.3% 0.53
88 I 6.152 2 2.175 3,372 35.4% 0.55
89 5,95~1~_ 2.163____ 3,629 36.3% 0.61
----.:.-.
90 6.082 2 I 2.175 3,372 35.8% 0.55
~5.798 3 2,163 3,629 37.3% 0.63
92 6,250 2 2,175 3,372 34.8% 0.54
93 I 8.146 3 2,163 3,629 26.6% 0.45
94 7,4~1 1 I 1,958 3,254 26.5% 0.44
95 , 10,395 I 3 2.163 3.629 20.8% 0.35
96 I 8.666 2 2.175 3.372 25.1% 0.39
97 , 5.804 3 ! 2.163 3,629 37.3% 0.63
98 6,593 2 , 2,175 3,372 33.0% 0.51
Prepared by MAY Group
Page 2 of 3
SPA2TRY4.XLS 10nt95
Rancho Del Rey - SPA II
Lot Coverage Report
J.N. 0017-3
i LOT PLAN 1ST FLOOR 1ST & 2ND LOT FLOOR
LOT # I AREA. (SF) -- "---- -.--.- I-c-'~-
TYPE + 3-CAR GARAGE (SF) + GAR. (SF) COVERAGE AREA RATIO
99 I 6,784 3 , 2,163 3,629 31.9% 0.53
100 i 6.839 2 2,175 3,372 31.8% 0.49
101 i 7,691 3 2,163 3,629 28.1% 0.47
_~.~~+_8,255 3 2,163 3,629 26.2% 0.44
103: 7,366 I 3 2,163 3,629 29.4% 0.49
I
104 I 5,83.5 ! 3 2,163 3,629 37.1% 0.62
105 I 6,164 ! 2 2,175 3,372 35.3% 0.55
106 I 5,6~3 2,163 3,629 38.3% 0.64
107 I 5,838 1 , 1,958 3,254 33.5% 0.56
108 I 6,017 2 2.175 3,372 36.1% 0.56
109 : 5,704 , 1 1,958 3,254 34.3% 0.57
110 I 6,880 I 3 , 2.163 3,629 31.4% 0.53
111 I 11,268 ! 2 I 2,175 3,372 19.3% 0.30
112 I 7,219 3 : 2,163 3,629 30.0% 0.50
113 7,000 3 I 2.163 3,629 30.9% 0.52
114 7.223 2 2.175 3,372 30.1% 0.47
115 6,078 3 2,163 3,629 35.6% 0.60
116 6.628 3 2,163 3,629 32.6% 0.55
117 6.708 , 2 I 2,175 3,372 32.4% 0.50
118 6,345 I 3 2,163 3,629 34.1% 0.57
119 5,781 I 1 1.958 3,254 33.9% 0.56
120 5.794 I 3 2.163 3,629 37.3% 0.63
121 7,582 2 2.175 3,372 28.7% 0.44
122 7,321 3 2,163 3,629 29.5% 0.50
123 6.074 I 1 1.958 3,254 32.2% 0.54
124 6.080 i 3 , 2,163 3.629 35.6% 0.60
125 I 6.014 I 1 I 1.958 3,254 32.6% 0.54
126 5,919 I 3 i _~2--1.6} 3,629 36.5% 0.61
1--:j"27 ~ 3.254 35.3%
5.544 I 1 i 1958 0.59
128 - , 2,175 3,372 40.8% 0.63
5.32~,
129 , 5.158 I 2 2,175 3,372 42.2% 0.65
130 5,146 1 1,958 3.254 38.0% 0.63
131 5.146 1 1,958 3,254 38.0% 0.63
132 5,233 2 2.175 r 3,372 41.6% 0.64
133 5,628 3 2.163 3,629 38.4% 0.64
134 I 6.313 2 2,175 3,372 34.5% 0.53
135 : 8,746 I 3 2.163 3,629 24.7% 0.41
Prepared by MAY Group
Page 3 of 3
SPA2TRY4.XLS 10f7195
r. ._
r.....; - -."
'---."-.
q:
CENTEX HOMES
"-...-
AMERICA'S .. HOMEBUILDER
Ocro'
'" 1995
PI
. ..J-.f it ~ I . I,' .
~ j. , \..:.'
September 27, 1995
Mr. Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Planning Department
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
RE: Rancho Del Rey
Appeal for increase in F.A.R. for SPA 2, Site 2105
Dear Mr. Leiter:
Centex Homes recently purchased lots from Rancho Del Rey lnvestors, lnc. within SPA 2 (Site
2105) of Rancho Del Rey. The site has an approved Final Tract Map for 135 homes and a large
portion of the site has fully developed infrastructure. Shortly after our purchase, we submitted
building plans to the City of Chula Vista building department. The plans Centex submitted were
within the square footage range determined and ~proved by Rancho Del Rey for construction on
the site. We were scheduled to be under construction as of September 19, 1995, and are currently
on hold due to an apparent oversight by Rancho Del Rey and Centex regarding the application of
t~e Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to this site.
Centex and Rancho Del Rey met with planning staff to request an administrative modification of the
FAR allowable under the SPA plan and were denied primarily because we exceeded the Floor Area
Ratio, with little consideration given for overiding or offsetting site planning factors. We proposed
valid planning argwnents based on rear pad depths of approximately 20 feet, building architecture,
lot fit, lots adjacent to open space and large slopes, etc. However, we were unsuccessful in obtaining
approval to exceed the .55 FAR necessary to build in the square footage range we proposed (2625
SF to 2994 SF not including the 3 car garage). Planning staff did not consider the arguments we
proposed because in their opinion, the FAR was driving the determination, not our planning
arguments, whether valid or not.
At our second meeting with your staff, we were informed that the most flexibility we could expect
administratively would be in the range of 15%. According to Mr. Ken Lee, approximately 15% of
the lots could exceed .55 FAR within a reasonable margin to be determined by the Planning Director.
Since our product would require nearly 35% or between 37 and 45 lots in excess of .55 FAR ( even
CUilTU: lEAL lUAU COlrOIATION . ~AN DIU.O DI\lISION
~Q02 li'. rlACl COURT S\.11T[ 250 C"'.lS&AD CAlIFORNI" 91008 6:94)1 121 t ,,,x 619 431551 (
.
Mr. Bob Leiter
Page 2
September 27, 1995
though 10 lots exceed the FAR by only ,0 I), staff recommended that we appeal to the Planning
Commission for relief to our request.
SPA 2 has an FAR allowance of .55 unless modified by the Planning Director. At least 37 lots out
of 135 lots would exceed the .55 FAR ratio even though the plans fit from a setback and lot coverage
standpoint. Even more compelling is the fact that our plans meet the goals of the City in tenns of
providing quality executive housing in the SPA 2 area and fit within a square footage range
appropriate for the area in which we would be building.
This issue has become purely a numbers issue, with insufficient consideration given for valid site
planning and good architecture. Good planning and design should never be overshadowed by
inappropriate or constraining ordinances established primarily to prevent existing housing products
from overbuilding the neighborhood. For this reason, we ask for the City to consider an appeal from
Centex Homes to construct the building plans previously submitted. Although it is not the City's
concern, anything short of an approval would result in a significant design change and further delay
. the project. It is important for us to start the project as soon as possible to be ready for the prime
selling season which typically occurs after the first of the year.
Centex Homes respectfully requests a fonnal appeal process be initiated by the City as soon as
possible on our behalf to allow us to exceed .55 FAR. We would appeal to the Planning
Commission to allow up to 35% of our project to exceed .55 FAR, but in no case would we exceed
.65 FAR, provided all other planning and development standards are met.
Your immediate attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated since we are currently on hold
and are incurring rather significant costs associated with delaying our construction.
Sincerely,
CENTEX HOMES
S Division
M Rohrlick
Vice President
cc: Ken Baumgartner, Rancho Del Rey
Doug Jaeger, Centex Homes
Ken Lee, City ofChula Vista""/
272 7 i-!~)O"il"r A\.i('nue
rJd1i.:;r',i::;! (,1)1, CA 91950
16' ~.: c: '7 7 -4: 1,
~\\\lc\li!1ji1lIJl1i!r.li,i',.
October 19, 1995
Mr, Paul Manganelli
Planning Department
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: CASE NO. PCM - 96 - 10
CENT EX HOMES - RANCHO DEL REY
Dear Mr. Manganelli:
This letter is being written in support of the appeal requested by Centex Homes. As the
master developer of Rancho del Rey, we believe that this project as proposed exceeds
every design and architectural standard. The City Council has continuously indicated its
desire to have this area of Rancho del Rey developed with "executive and estate" homes.
To this end, Centex Homes has been encouraged by us to build homes almost 3,000
square feet in size with three car garages and with upgraded appointments. Within the
SPA II area, the Aragon project is currently being built with executive homes ranging in
size from approximately 3,000 to over 4,000 square feet. Also located in SPA II is the
Rancho del Rey Estates project, which is a custom home development with homes
exceeding 4,000 square feet. The proposed Centex project complements this mix.
The proposed project meets every development regulation (e.g. lot coverage, building
height, setbacks, and other numerous requirements) with the exception of Floor Area
Ratio (FAR), As explained in the attached memorandum from Cinti Land Planning, the
application of FAR to new homes within a master planned development is somewhat
arbitrary and unnecessary constraint in an effort to build larger executive homes. The
development regulations specifically penn its the Planning Director and on appeal
Planning Commission discretion in considering a deviation from the FAR standard
through the Design Review process, The Design Review process allows for extraordinary
and unique circumstances to be considered in considering a request. This project meets
this test for the following reasons:
1. The project does not violate any development regulation that would create any
visible exception (i.e. reduced setback or height exceptions).
Mr, Paul Manganelli
Planning Department
October 19,1995
Page 2
2. All houses in this development will be of comparable bulk and massing without
any discernible differences.
3. Many lots are adjacent to public open space or adjacent to slopes that create
visual separation of the homes.
4. This project fulfills a community need to expand "executive housing"
opportunities for existing and future employers,
5. The availability of high quality executive housing in the community fosters
economic development and could be an important factor in existing businesses
remaining in Chula Vista and new businesses locating here.
The Planning Commission has the discretion to approve this request. The ordinances
anticipated the need for flexibility. The hard line application of FAR to this project
precludes our ability to provide a diversity of housing for the community. We would
request the Commission's approval of the appeal.
Very truly yours,
RANCHO DEL REY INVESTORS, L.P.
C'
Vice resident
McMillin Project Services, Inc.
CTF:lb
Enclosure
cc: Ken Lee, Assistant Planning Director
Steve Griffin, Principal Planner
C:LBICFI WWlL-MANGNEU
~inti
LAND
PLANNING
October 18, 1995
Memo to:
Craig Fukuyama
From:
Gary Cinti
Subject:
Centex Homes FAR Appeal
Following are my comments on the use ofF AR in general and specifically with respect to the Executive
Housing proposed by Centex Homes in SPA II.
Introduction
The project proposes to construct single family homes in the northern plateau area of Rancho Del Rey
SP A II. This area has been planned from the outset as ideally suited for executive housing. The
proposed project meets all of the specifically prescribed standards, including: lot coverage; side yard
setbacks; rront yard setbacks; rear yard setbacks; maximum building height; permitted use restrictions;
lot size criteria; residential design standards; landscape standards; and, numerous other policies and
regulations. However, there is one standard, the FAR statistic, which it only satisfies when computed
as an overall average.
The mere fact that the project is at variance with the FAR statistic does not require the project to be
denied, Recognizing that the diversity of housing design will make some models on some lots exceed
the precise FAR statistic, the adopted Planned Community District Regulations allow FAR variations
10 be approved during the Design Review Process. The use of this discretion during Design Review is
common. The issue in this project is the number of lots that are at variance with the FAR statistic. The
resolution of this issue involves weighing the benefits of the project as conceived, together with City
policies encouraging Executive Housing, against the utility of strict compliance with an FAR statistic
Following are discussions that describe the project and the FAR statistics, the history of FAR application
in general, and an overview ofF AR as applied in Chula Vista. Not only should the FAR statistic not be
strictly applied in this project, but there is evidence to support the deletion ofF AR as a useful standard
for Planned Communities in general. FAR may be a useful standard when applied to future homeowner
additions to new homes. The approval of this appeal would not remove FAR as an applicable standard
for future homeowner remodeling projects.
Cinti Land Plaruling
10/18/95
2932 Poinsettia Drive, San Diego, CA 92106-1128' FAX (619) 223-5108. Tel: (619) 223-7408
Why this project exceeds the FAR statistic?
Describing two alternative examples can best illustrate why a strict application of the FAR statistic for
this project is meaningless:
Example I: If the project was designed exactly as it is with only one change it would meet the
FAR standard. The one change would be to not give the home buyers fee title to the land under
their homes. That is correct. If the project were sold as a single family condominium project it
would comply with the FAR standard, because the statistic would then be applied as an overall
average. This change would have no impact on bulk, appearance, placement or size of any
building. However, this one change would devastate its financing and its Executive Housing
marketing potential.
Example 2: If the project was designed exactly as it is with only one physical change it would
also meet the FAR standard. The one change would be to put a hole in the center of each house,
possibly by removing the third garage. This "doughnut house," with its hole in the middle,
would then appear from the outside the same. There would be no apparent change to the size,
bulk, setback, or placement of any building. Yet this interior hole would bring the house into
strict compliance with the FAR statistic Chula Vista has experience in this type of unfavorable
solution. Obviously, this would not be a practical solution It would eliminate a benefit to the
home owner without adding a corresponding benefit to anyone.
The FAR statistic does not create any conflict in a typical new home However, when this home is
designed as an Executive Home with more elaborate interior spaces and a three-car garage, the FAR
then becomes an arbitrary constraint. In this project Executive Homes with three car garages cannot be
built unless this appeal is approved. Approval of this appeal would be totally consistent with the long
standing City desire to encourage development of Estate and Executive homes in the northern plateau
of Rancho Del Rey.
FAR history & application
Floor Area Ratio is an extension or traditional intensity controls in zoning. As such, they developed it
to meet the regulatory needs of buildings and uses that lot size, setbacks and height controls did not
control. It should be noted that FAR was developed and is best used to control development intensity
in multistory structures. Although it also affects bulk, it is not an effective substitute for setbacks and
height limits which directly control bulk
While the early control on development intensity for single family homes was primarily a minimum lot
size, height and coverage standards governed intensity of commercial development. These tended to
indirectly regulate intensity through control of building bulk. However, in more urban settings it was
found that height and lot coverage alone were inadequate to control intensity. Since there were occasions
where additional height could be acceptable if they reduced the footprint of the building. FAR was
Cinti Land Planning
10/18/95
2
developed to allow for a more creative "intensity envelope" for those situations. With a fixed FAR (fixed
intensity), a building could be twice as high, if they reduced its footprint by half. These are important
tradeo.IJs in urban areas where provision of light and air among high rise buildings is an important
issue. F ARs are still most commonly used in highly urban areas where FAR standards are far greater
than I.
From the community perspective, intensity controls are much more important that bulk controls, since
intensity dictates service requirements, infrastructure capacity, etc. For the immediate neighbor
however, bulk controls are very important since the "neighborliness" of a three-story building setback
five feet is very different from a one story building setback 15 feet. Traditional bulk standards include
setbacks from all property lines and a height limit which define a three dimensional building envelope.
In suburban residential development, these controls work very well because height limits of two or three
stories constrain buildings that might overwhelm one-story neighbors.
In addition, since contemporary building patterns in larger scale developments allow all the homes in a
neighborhood to be built at once, by the same builder, the original need for bulk controls (define future
building location) has been lost. In these cases, there is less need for zoning to control design
requirements and many communities today allow considerable flexibility in bulk requirements for planned
communities and similar developments. In some cases, design review requirements temper this flexibility
to avoid any "abuse" of flexible standards.
In planned development (PAD, PRD, PC, etc) the private sector developed controls largely to provide
the public sector with an effective means of regulating mixed use projects that did not fit comfortably
in traditional zoning district regulation Early advocates of planned development were attempting to
improve upon traditional use segregation requirements of zoning and find relief from detailed lot-by-lot
design requirements of traditional bulk regulations. Such requirements often encouraged developers to
bulldoze the landscape to provide a development pattern that could efficiently meet rigorous lot-by-Iot
requirements. Set up responsibly, the greater flexibility of planned development allows for site design
that is more responsive to the characteristics, product design and local preferences. By examining a
project as a whole, and constructing it as a whole, the planned development approach could result in
quaJity development without a need for lot-by-lot conformance to fixed requirements since the "unknown
future development," which zoning standards were adopted to control, is a known quantity and a part
of the overall project.
In these instances, control of potential individual home expansion or remodeling is the critical factor to
maintaining a neighborhood over time. Continuing design review, CC&Rs, fixed bulk controls (setbacks
and height limits) or they can use a combination to maintain neighborhood character over the long term.
Argument against FAR as used in Chula Vista planned communities
Chula Vista adopted FAR standards in response to a residential addition that resulted in a structure that
was out of character for the neighborhood in which it is located First this is an inappropriate use of
FAR. FAR is intended to control intensity (such as in a commercial or industrial building) not bulk.
Cinti Land Planning
10118/95
3
Height and setbacks are the proper tools for regulating bulk (as I recall the building in question violated
the height standard but was not "caught" In time). If setbacks and a height limit of28 feet are enforced,
what does an FAR "add" in terms of protecting the neighborhood?
In addition, FAR is not sensitive to bulk considerations. On smaller lots especially, "bulk" is a product
of design and appearance. Two story elements close to the street or side yard create the appearance of
"bulk," and FAR says nothing about the location of such elements, it only limits total floor area. This
indirectly "controls" bulk, but at a disadvantage to creative design that is the key to a quality appearance
with small lot sizes. Theoretically, a "doughnut house" (with a hole in the middle) could be built
consistent with FAR standards and setbacks (maximum height with minimum setbacks) but it would
appear very bulky, probably unacceptably so. Since FAR cannot truly control bulk, which is its
presumed purpose, it is only an arbitrary standard that constrains design without a benefit.
Cinti Land Planning
10118/95
4
,
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign
contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and
all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property which is the subject of the application or the
contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
CENTEX REAL ESTATE CORPORATION
dba CENTEX HOMES
2. If any person- identified pursuant to (I) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning
more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
N/A
3. If any person' identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person
serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or bcneficiary or trustor of the trust.
N/A
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions,
Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes_ NoXX If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors who
you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
DOUR Jae2er. Centex Homes
Mark Rohrlick. Centex Homes
Marwan Tounis, Tbe May Group
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Councilmember in the
current or preceding election period? Yes_ No XX If yes, state which Councilmember(s):
· . · (Nom Attach additional pages as D
Date:
October 6, 1995
of contractor/applicant
Mark Robrlick
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
. !:!!E2!l is tkfiJl.cd as; "A"y indi~'idJ.uJJ, /inn, co-parrllmhip, jaw ~ GSJocuwon, social club, frmt:l71lJi organiultion, corporation, esllll4 trust, nxtiva, syndiCalt;
lIW and allY olho- count)~ cily and country, city mwucipaU,y, distric~ or olhu political mbdivision, or any OlMr group or combination acting as a uniL"
THE
Y OF 0i1JLA VISTA DlSa..osURE
..TEMENT
You are required 10 file a Slalement of Disclosure of certain owne~hip or financial interests, payments, or campaign
contributions, on all mailers which will require discrelionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and
all other omeial txxIies. The following information mUSI be disclosed:
1. List Ihe names of all persons having a financial interest in the property which is Ihe subject of the application or the
contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier, ,
RANCHO DEL REY INVESTORS. L.P.
A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
1. If any person' identified pursuant to (I) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning
more than 10% Of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
TRIDENT USA. INC.
McMILLIN-RDR, INC.
3. If any person' identified pursuant to (I) above is non.profit organizalion or a trust, list the names of any person
serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or benet'iciary or trustor of the trust.
N/A
4, Have you had more than S250 worth Of business transacted with any member Of the City slaff, Boards, Commissions,
Commillees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes_ No2-., If yes, please indicale person(s):
S. Please identify eaeh and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contraclors who
you have assigned to represent you before the City in this mailer.
Craig T. Fukuyama
(J(d'i (:~ /It I
Thorn Fuller
Kenneth Baumaartner
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregale, contribuled more than SI,OOO 10 a Councilmember in the
current or preceding elcction period? Yes_ No.2.. If yes, Slate which Councilmember(s):
· . . (NOTE: Attach addiliollll pap
e Of contraetor/appllcant
Dale: 9/12/95
Print or type name Of contraclor/applicant
. ~ is defined &IS; "AllY iluU"'duaJ., [inn, co-pamlD'Ship, jow YCNIVt, Q.U<<;QliOtI, socUJ/ chdJ, fraJertwl o'JOltizmion. cOfPOroo'on, eJtau, ~ receivc-, ryndicau.
IIti.s and 0;.' oUtt:r cowl')', city and cowwy, wy IfWllicipoJity, dillricl, or oilier po/ilkaJ saJKJivWotl, '" tllfY oVuer If'OUP or combwuion IICIiJar tu (2 waiL "