HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1987/07/22 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, July 22, 1987 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission
on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an
item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed 5
minutes.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued) Conditional Use Permit PCC-87-39M: Request
to allow continuance of an RV storage lot located at
1383 Broadway - Broadway Equities, Ltd.
2. Report on implementation of floor area ratio (FAR) and height limitations
(PCA-86-6)
3. OTHER BUSINESS: a. Consideration of an amendment to the Land Use Chart
to permit on-site dry cleaning in the C-N zone (PCM-87-22)
Mike Hammit
b. Resolution - Library Master Plan
c. Preview of Rancho del Rey SPA I Plan
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT AT to the Regular Business Meeting of August 12, 1987
at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers
July 17, 1987
TO: City Planning Commission
FROM: George Krempl, Director of Planning ~
SUBJECT: Staff Report on Agenda Items for Planning Commission
Meeting of July 22, 1987
1. PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued) Conditional Use Permit PCC-87-39M: Request
to allow continuance of an RV storage lot located at
1383 Broadway - Broadway Equities, Ltd.
This item was continued from the meeting of June 10, 1987. Due to adjustments
in the meeting schedule for the Montgomery Planning Committee, staff is
requesting that the hearing be continued again to the meeting of August 12,
in order to allow the item to be heard by the Montgomery Planning Committee
on August 5. The applicant has no objection to the continuance.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of July 22, 1987 Page 1
2. Report on implementation of floor area ratio (FAR) and height limitations
- PCA-86-6
A. BACKGROUND
In May 1986, the City Council amended the Zoning Ordinance to establish a
floor area ratio (FAR) and a more restrictive height limit for development
in the R-E, R-1 and R-2 zone, and also in the P-C zone for residential
areas not subject to design review. Staff was directed to report back in
one year on the implementation of the new restrictions.
The Commission has recently expressed concern with deviations from the 45%
FAR in the case of some small-lot, P-C zoned developments. The report is
therefore being offered for Commission review and recommendation prior to
Council consideration.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a motion supporting the FAR and height limitations as presently
established.
C. DISCUSSION
The amendments in question established an FAR {the ratio of allowable
floor area to lot size) of 45% for single family dwellings and 55% for two
family dwellings. The height limit for principal buildings was
established at two and one-half stories or 28 feet, and one and one-half
stories or 15 feet for accessory structures. A provision was also
included to allow an increase in principal building height subject to
approval of a conditional use permit.
The new restrictions were adopted for the purpose of establishing a more
effective means of controlling the scale and bulk of residential
development in the absence of a design review procedure. Such cases
primarily involve additions to existing dwellings and in-fill construction
within established R-E, R-l, R-2, and some P-C zoned neighborhoods. The
bulk and scale of development in these areas was previously controlled by
way of a 40% lot coverage limitation and 35 ft. height restriction. It
was found that these limits would permit the construction of a dwelling
out of proportion with the size of the lot and character of the
neighborhood.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of July 22, 1987 Page 2
In contrast, P-C zoned areas subject to design review -- which would
include all recent small-lot single family projects -- were exempted from
the restrictions. In such cases, the City is approving an entire
development package, including provisions for common open space, lot
configurations, architectural elevations, floor plans, the siting and
interrelationship of dwellings, and development standards which restrict
additions and modifications, and which are enforceable by individual
owners or an association, as well as the City. As a result, the ultimate
scale and bulk of dwellings and the character of the neighborhood is
predetermined and known to the City and each prospective homeowner.
D. ANALYSIS
As was expected, the vast majority of single and two family development
can be accommodated comfortably within the new restrictions. Only rarely
has a building permit been encountered which exceeds the FAR or height
limit and in most of those cases adjustments have been made to allow the
proposal to proceed in conformance with the standards. It also appears
that these restrictions generally limit development to a reasonable bulk
and scale considering that a lack of attention to design can still result
in an obtrusive dwelling.
There has been only two FAR variance requests, both involving proposals to
exceed the 45% single family limit. The first request was denied
initially by the Commission, and later by the Council after the proposal
had been scaled down to an actual reduction in nonconforming FAR from 46%
to 45.5% in order to replace an existing 540 sq. ft. detached garage with
a new 528 sq. ft. detached garage. The second request, involving an
increase from 45% to 50% FAR in order to construct a new dwelling on a
custom lot in Rancho Robinhood III, was considered and approved by the
Zoning Administrator on the basis that the precise plan for the
subdivision was approved for 50% rather than 40% coverage on custom lots.
There have been no requests as yet to vary from the 28 ft. height limit.
The experience of the last year would therefore indicate that the basic
FAR and height limits are reasonable and generally effective. In those
cases where the FAR represents a hardship for an inordinately small lot, a
variance can be considered. Also, as noted above, the height limit can be
increased upon the approval of a conditional use permit.
One issue which has surfaced with regard to the FAR is whether or not
open-sided structures, such as patio covers, porches and so on, should be
exempted from the limitation. The argument being that structures open on
two or more sides do not present the same bulk as an enclosed space and do
not contribute to the living area of the dwelling. This argument was
advanced without success by the applicant for the first variance noted
above, where 232 sq. ft. or three percent of the FAR consisted of a front
porch open on three sides. We believe that such structures can contribute
significantly to building bulk depending on the particular circumstances
of the case and thus do not represent a good candidate for exemption.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of July 22, 1987 Page 3
In recent years, however, the City has approved small-lot developments
where initial construction is at or above 45% FAR, and where provision is
made in the development standards for the later addition of a 300 sq. ft.
sunscreen-type patio cover, open on at least two sides and with a
semi-open roof design consisting of lattice work or spaced slats (please
see exhibit). In staff's opinion, this type of structure represents more
of an open space element than building mass and could be considered for
exemption from the FAR with limitations regarding size, location and
design.
On the other hand, the distinction should be made that in small-lot P-C
developments the design and dimensions of the dwelling are set and the
allowance is for the addition of a sunscreen only -- all other additions
are prohibited. The same allowance for an R-1 property could obviously
result in any form of addition simply by the fact that most such
properties already have a patio cover which could be modified to qualify
for the exemption and thereby allow additional square footage elsewhere.
Also, without recorded CC&R's or a homeowners association, there is more
likelihood that some property owners would later cover or enclose the
sunscreen, resulting in additional bulk and/or enforcement problems for
the City.
All in all, we support the FAR as presently established. For instance,
the standard 7,000 sq. ft. R-1 lot can accommodate 3,150 sq. ft. of floor
area under this limit, and this appears to represent a reasonable use of
the property wi th or without a sunscreen structure. As noted earlier, the
exceptional case can always be considered under the variance procedure.
WPC 4089P
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of July 22, 1987 Page 1
3. OTHER BUSINESS: PCM-87-22; Consideration of an amendment to the Land
Use Chart to permit on-site dry cleaning in the C-N
zone - Mike Hammit
A. BACKGROUND
The request is to amend the Land Use Chart to allow on-site dry cleaning
of a retail nature in the C-N Neighborhood Commercial zone. Approval of
the request would allow the applicant to clean garments at his present
facility, The Broadway Cleaners, located in the neighborhood shopping
center at the northwest corner of Hilltop Drive and Naples Street.
The proposal is exempt from environmental review.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a motion amending the Land Use Chart to allow retail dry cleaning in
the C-N zone.
C. DISCUSSION
The Land Use Chart is adopted by Commission resolution and is for the
purpose of refining and clarifying the general land use categories in the
City's Zoning Ordinance. The Chart may be amended upon individual
request, and is also reviewed and updated periodically by the Commission
to reflect current land use characteristics.
The Land Use Chart presently distinguishes between "Dry Cleaning & Laundry
(Pick-up only)", where cleaning is done off-site by contract with a
wholesale plant; "Dry Cleaning Plants (Light)", where cleaning is done
on-site for retail customers only; and, "Dry Cleaning Plants
(Industrial)", a wholesale operation which contracts to provide cleaning
for "Pick-up only" facilities. The first category is permitted in all
retail commercial zones, while the second is allowed in all retail zones
except the C-N zone. The last category is allowed only in industrial
zones.
The applicant has submitted an excellent overview of the dry cleaning
industry (please see attached). The information shows that all dry
cleaning operations must meet strict environmental standards, and that the
only distinction between the "Pick-up" and "Retail plant" operations is
that the latter facility includes equipment to accomplish cleaning
on-site. The Fire Marshal has confirmed that such facilities are required
to meet specific fire and building codes and, on this basis, has no
objection to the request.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of July 22, 1987 Page 2
The dry cleaning machine itself has been described by the applicant as a
large washing machine which measures 4 ft. square and stands 6 ft. high.
The total floor space necessary to accommodate the equipment and its use
approximates 30-35 sq. ft. One machine is apparently adequate to serve a
successful neighborhood operation, and thus the space demands are minimal.
D. ANALYSIS
The C-N zone is designed to provide a location for commercial enterprises
providing goods and services to the immediate area surrounding the center,
and is limited to uses which are consistent with the character of
residential neighborhoods. A retail dry cleaner either with or without
on-site cleaning is consistent with this purpose considering the
regulatory health and safety protections noted above.
The only concern would be the potential of such an establishment becoming
a retail/wholesale hybrid and thus exceeding the scale and activity levels
consistent with a residential setting, including a fleet of trucks for
instance. The Zoning Ordinance further provides, however, that "The
number of employees in any business establishment in a C-N zone shall be
limited to those necessary for the conduct of the on-site business and no
person shall be engaged in the activity of processing, fabricating or
repairing goods for delivery or sale at other locations." (Note: The
Commission has determined in the past that this provision does not exclude
incidental delivery associated with a neighborhood serving use.)
Based upon these factors, we recommend approval of the request.
WPC 4071 P
April 6, 1987
Mr. Stephen Griffin
Planning Department
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 92010
Dear Mr. Griffin,
I would appreciate your presentation, on my behalf, to the Chula Vista
planning commission regarding an addition to your list of allowable
businesses within the commercial neighborhood (C-N) zoned areas.
As we've previously discussed, I own The Broadway Cleaners which is located in
the Country Club Center at Hilltop Drive and Naples Street. This business has
been in operation at this location for the past eight years but the actual
cleaning of garments has been done off site. My request for a change in
zoning concerns my desire to begin the cleaning of garments on the premises.
(Currently all pressing is accomplished at the above location with a State of
California inspected and approved boiler on site).
In order to define this request as a minor variation from an existing use
without focusing on my business, a brief analysis of the dry cleaning industry
could be helpful. This industry can be basically segmented into four distinct
types of operation. These areas of the market place differ mostly in the
manner by which their revenues are generated and their workload processed.
Annual sales volumes and plant square footage differ sharply from store to
store in each respective category. Therefore these criteria of volume and
area can be misleading. The following category labels having been used by the
California State Board of Fabricare, help to more clearly define the role of
each individual dry cleaning establishment.
AGENCY - (Pick up station) A store front operation where retail customers
either pick up or drop off garments. No work is actually done on the
premises. Garments are processed (cleaned and pressed) elsewhere then
delivered to the agency as a finished product. By subcontracting the cleaning
and pressing work the agency acts merely as a distributor.
SPOT AND PRESS SHOP - Like the agency, garments are cleaned elsewhere, but all
pressing and spot removal are accomplished on site. Steam presses and irons
are used in addition to numerous other pieces of finishing equipment.
RETAIL PLANT - A fully self contained dry cleaning operation. All work
(pressing, spot removal, and garment cleaning) is completed on site. The main
difference between the "Spot and Press Shop" and the "Retail Plant" is the
ability to facilitate the actual cleaning of garments on the premises. The
finishing equipment, steam generating boiler, typical floor plan, and area
requirements are nearly identical. The "Retail Plant" and "Spot and Press
Shop" both generate sale volume through a walk-in clientele only.
WHOLESALE PLANT - An operation which virtually mirrors the "Retail Plant"
except the manner in which revenues are generated. A "Wholesale Plant"
derives nearly all of its income through contracts with either "Agencies" or
"Spot and Press Shops" to provide services (i.e. cleaning and pressing).
Little to no walk-in business is typical for this type of operation. As high
volume, low profit goods are necessary for this type of operation to prosper,
they tend to be larger, more industrial plants. Their payrolls are usually
much higher than the other industry categories and more space is needed for
employees and the necessary fleet of trucks for route service.
Currently the Broadway Cleaners falls within the "Spot and Press" category.
Through this correspondence I seek to redefine the Chula Vista City Zoning
ordinance to allow "Retail Plant" operations to conduct business within the
C-N zone. I would certainly agree that a "Wholesale Pla~t" may be deemed
inappropriate for this zoning, however the retail Plant, as defined above,
could very well be an ideally suited resident within the C-N zone.
In order to facilitate the actual dry cleaning process in house, some new
equipment must, of course, be installed. All dry cleaning plants must meet
rigid standards in regard to air pollution and toxic waste management. The
regulatory agencies which establish and enforce these standards include The
Federal Environmental Protection Agency, (E.P.A.), and the San Diego County
Air Pollution Control Department, (A.P.C.D.). In addition the inspections by
the Local Fire Marshals and Health Departments would monitor the operation to
see that it meets safety requirements.
The proposed additional equipment has all been designed to be harmless to the
atmosphere and individuals who come into contact with this machinery. The dry
cleaning machine itself washes the garments in Perchloroethyline.
Perchloroethyline is a petroleum based solvent, and is the "standard" of the
industry with an estimated 95% of dry cleaning plants utilizing it. This
solvent is used to wash the garments then extracted from the garments and
returned to a holding tank after filtering. The garments are cleaned and
dried all in a single tub. This type of machine is known as a "dry to dry"
because the air tight door is not opened until the garments have gone through
a complete cycle (wash, extract, and dry). This prevents the escape of odors
into the atmosphere. As additional safeguards to the atmosphere this plant
will also incorporate a solvent recovery system. This system actually forms a
closed loop system which takes the potentially toxic waste fumes and recycles
them through a carbon filter, then reintroduces the now clean air back into
the atmosphere. This method also cools the solvent which is rated as a non-
flammable liquid. Any toxic waste (used filter cartridges) will be handled in
a manner consistent with the regulations of the E.P.A. and A.P.C.D. and
disposed of by a licensed waste control management firm.
The frame and stucco construction type and "strip center" format of the
Country Club Center is similar to many retail oriented shopping areas
throughout the city. A few examples of this type of development include the
respective centers in which some of my competitors operate their plants.
Several dry cleaners who currently operate a "Retail Plant" similar to the one
I hope to be allowed to install are:
The Eldorado Cleaners, 868 Third Avenue
Speedy-Clean Cleaners, 1337 Third Avenue
The Canyon Plaza Cleaners, 515 Telegraph Canyon Road
These were selected as examples because of their "Retail Plant" type of
operation and relative proximity. Seemingly these businesses haven't been
deemed as detrimental to their neighborhoods, which bear a striking
resemblance to the County Club Center.
In summation, I am certain that allowing strictly retail oriented dry cleaning
plants to operate in the commercial neighborhood zone will create no adverse
conditions. A retail dry cleaning plant in operation will create no
additional noise, odor, dangers, or traffic within the area of use.
Your anticipated cooperation in the review of this matter is greatly
appreciated.
Enclosed please find a check for the cost of the survey.
Sincerely,
Mike Hammitt
The Broadway Cleaners
17 1/2 Naples
Chula Vista, California 92011
619-422-6690
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of July 22, 1987 Page 1
3. OTHER BUSINESS: Planning Commission Workshop on the Rancho del Rey SPA
t Plan, PCM-87-6
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this workshop is to discuss the Rancho del Rey SPA I Plan.
That plan was submitted on October 13, 1986, and is the first phase in
implementation of the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan, which was adopted, as
amended, by the City Council on November 12, 1985. The E1 Rancho del Rey
Specific Plan covers 2,337 acres and proposes 6,620 dwelling units of varying
densities, an employment park, open space and public facility uses {Attachment
#1). The SPA I Plan encompasses approximately 808 acres of the Specific Plan
and includes 2,201 residential units, the employment park, open space, and
various public facilities (Attachment #2). To assist in your understanding of
this project, we have included this staff report as well as copies of:
the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan, as amended, dated November 12,
1985, text and maps;
the Rancho del Rey SPA I Plan text and map.
DISCUSSION:
As stated above, the Rancho del Rey SPA I Plan is the first phase in the
implementation of the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. That Specific Plan
incorporated within it measures for the conservation and protection of the
natural resources that exist onsite while at the same time providing a plan
for a mixture of uses that could realistically be implemented given current
and projected economic considerations. The SPA Plan is intended to function
as a bridge between the Chula Vista General Plan and the submittal of any
detailed subdivision maps. It is intended that this SPA Plan perform and
implement all the goals and objectives of the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan
as well as the Chula Vista General Plan. The Specific Plan has been divided
into four sectional planning area boundaries as depicted on Attachment ~3.
Due to the more detailed analysis contained within the SPA Plan, refinements
to the Specific Plan with each SPA Plan are anticipated. However, the
generalized objectives of the Specific Plan will have to be adhered to with
each subsequent document.
The Rancho del Rey SPA I Plan covers the largest and most significant portion
of the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. It includes all of East "H" Street
which traverses the project as well as major portions of Rice Canyon and the
ridges adjacent to it. Most of the parks and public facilities anticipated in
the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan are contained within SPA I. In addition
to the land use elements of the project, this plan sets the framework for the
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of July 22, 1987 Page 2
community design guidelines and development regulations that will guide
subdivision maps within this SPA as well as future SPA plans. Details on the
land use components of the SPA I Plan are depicted on the site utilization
plan IAttachment #2).
To assist in your review of the SPA Plan, the following is a point-by-point
analysis of the issues that we have identified to date and our status on those
issues.
1. Specific Plan Conformance - In general, staff believes that the SPA I Plan
is in conformance with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Specific
Plan. The SPA I Plan proposes transferring density to different areas
within the boundaries of SPA I because of the refinement of topographic
and grading studies that have been completed for this SPA. This ability
was authorized under the terms of the Specific Plan.
One of the major changes in the SPA-I Plan from the Specific Plan is the
transfer of density from the smaller lot residential areas to townhouse or
multi-family development areas. We are still reviewing specific
development proposals to more completely respond to this issue.
2. Environmental - A Draft Environmental Impact Report is completed for this
project. That Environmental Impact Report is presently out for public
review and will be considered by your Commission on August 12, 1987.
3. Design of the Land Plan - Staff and the applicant have reviewed several
iterations of the site utilization plan. We are continuing to review each
area in detail and are anticipating the submittal of more detailed design
guidelines that will assist in the review of tentative subdivision maps.
Generally, the design of the land plan as presently submitted responds to
many of the concerns that staff has identified through the process since
last October. Several areas that will still be reviewed include the
detail of the residential neighborhoods, the relocation of the school site
(which will be discussed later), and the fine tuning of the standards
contained within the development regulations.
4. Parks, Recreation and Open Space - As stated earlier, many of the parks
and natural open space areas proposed in the Specific Plan are contained
in SPA I. A major effort of staff has been to assure that the natural
open space system is protected while, at the same time, making those open
space areas visually accessible to the public. Regarding the parks and
recreation facilities, the present plan responds to the concerns of both
Parks and Recreation and the Planning Departments concerning size of the
parks and the facilities that will be contained therein. Details
concerning the phasing of those parks and their improvements still need to
be discussed. A trail system is proposed that will connect all the parks
with the residential area, the employment park, and the open space network.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of July 22, 1987 Page 3
5. Schools - Proposed within SPA I is an elementary school site. The present
site shown on the Site Utilization Plan is unacceptable to the Chula Vista
School District. For that reason, the applicant will be revising the SPA
Plan to move the school site to another location acceptable to the
The
District and City staff. Plan)applicant has proposed a financing program
(the Mello-Roos Financing with the Sweetwater High School District.
No high school or junior high school site is proposed within the SPA I
Plan but there is a junior high site in SPA II. Through discussions with
the High School District, the districts appear satisfied with the
initiation of a financing mechanism to assist the District in financing a
high school site.
6. Water Facilities The SPA I Plan defines certain onsite as well as
offsite water facilities. The Otay Water District is reviewing that for
compliance and has indicated on a preliminary basis that they are
satisfied with the facilities designated within the plan.
7. Sewer - The City Engineering Department is reviewing the SPA I Plan for
the adequacy of the proposed sewer facilities.
8. Traffic Circulation - Traffic is a major consideration of the SPA Plan.
Traffic studies have been completed and a plan has been put forth to
respond to the traffic circulation problems that this project as well as
others will generate. There are still remaining issues to be responded to
concerning traffic, especially the capacity of a section of East "H"
Street and the phasing of other improvements. The department is still
reviewing both the traffic issues as well as the financing proposals for
those improvements.
9. Public Facility Financing A Public Facilities Financing Plan has been
submitted as a part of the SPA I Plan. That plan was originally submitted
in December of last year but was significantly revised by the applicant
and resubmitted on July 6 of this year. We have dispersed that to other
City staff to review. Because it was submitted just two weeks ago, we do
not have any conclusions regarding that plan to date but would be
available to review it with your Commission. When the Public Facilities
Financing Plan is finalized, a draft development agreement will be prepared
to implement the terms and conditions of the plan.
10. Other Public Facilities - Within the SPA I Plan a site is being dedicated
for a library. The site is tentative at this point. In addition to that,
a 1-acre site for a fire station has been proposed within the project.
The Fire Department has indicated a need for a larger site for a training
facility. This will need further discussion.
ll. Design Guidelines/Development Regulations - As a part of the SPA Plan your
Commission will find preliminary design guidelines and development
regulations contained within the text. We have asked that the design
guidelines be expanded significantly to provide more detail. Those have
yet to be submitted but should be submitted within the next 30 days. When
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of July 22, 1987 Page 4
that occurs, the Site Utilization Plan, Design Guidelines, and Development
Regulations will be reviewed in concert to provide the necessary
implementation detail for our final analysis of both the SPA-I Plan and
subsequent tentative subdivision maps.
As stated earlier, this is the first public presentation to your Commission of
this Rancho del Rey SPA I Plan. We also stated that since the Draft
Environmental Impact Report is out for public review, we have scheduled a
separate discussion on the Environmental Impact Report for August 12, 1987.
Since this is a large area and the issues to be discussed are quite
diversified, we envisioned this workshop to be the first step in the overall
review of the SPA I Plan. If there need to be other workshops to assist your
Commission in reviewing this project, that can certainly fit into the schedule.
WPC 4084P
ATTACHMENT #3
SPA Boundaries
~Ap~'~~(~m.nI'~O DEL ~ Cinti
&~es
(6191 239 1815
tY by the l~ancho Del Rey Pm-tr~rship 3124187 Exhibit 3