Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1987/02/25 A6ENDA City Plannin9 Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, February 25, 1987 - 7:00 p.m. City Council chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 1. Consideration of Final EIR-86-3 Town Centre II (Expansion of Chula Vista Shopping Center) 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-87-5M: Consideration of request to construct a new clubhouse at 88 'L' Street San Diego Country Club (Continued) 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-87-19: Request to vary from standard parking requirements at 475 'H' Street - In Sang Company Election of Vice Chairman DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT to the Workshop Meeting of March 7, 1987 at 9:00 a.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3 CI'IY OF CHULA VISI'A PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL WORKSHOP NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Special Workshop of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION will be held on Saturday, March 7, 1987, from 9:00 to ll:O0 a.m., in Conference Rooms 2 and 3. An Update of the General Plan will be presented by representatives from PRC Engineering. Ruth M Smith, Secretary Planning Commission March 3, 1987 276 FOURTH AVENUE/CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 92010/(619} 691-5101 City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 25, 1987 Page 1 1. Consideration of Final EIR-86-3 on Town Centre II Redevelopment Project A. BACKGROUND The public hearing on the draft of this EIR was held before the Planning Commission on January 28, 1987. A transcript from that public hearing along with all written comments and responses to all relevant comments have been included in the final EIR after page 90. Consideration of the final EIR was scheduled for mid-February; however, action was delayed until greater substantiation and detailing of the fiscal analysis and expansion of the alternative and long-term/cumulative traffic analysis impacts could be provided. B. RECOMMENDATION Certify that EIR-86-3 has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vi sta. C. ANALYSIS The primary areas of modification in the final EIR were in traffic and fiscal analysis. The changes in the traffic analysis involved a more detailed presentation traffic mitigation, an evaluation of the alternative project impacts and a long-term/cumulative analysis. 1. Implementation of the proposed project would increase the number of trips on the streets located within the project area, most notably Broadway, H Street, I Street and 4th Avenue. Without mitigation, the increased cumulative traffic volumes would result in a significant reduction in the level of service at the Broadway/H Street intersection from Level of Service E to a Level of Service F., exceeding the roadway capacity. The 4th Avenue/H Street intersection would worsen from Level of Service D to Level of Service E with project implementation. These are regarded as significant environmental impacts associated with traffic. The reductions in Level of Service at the Broadway/I Street and 4th Avenue/J Street intersections are not considered to result in significant impacts. These two intersections would remain at LOS C or better. The mitigation measures are recommended to reduce potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. With implementation of these measures, potential traffic impacts associated with the project would be fully mitigated. One intersection, Broadway/H Street, would continue to operate at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour even with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. The LOS E at this intersection would occur with or without the proposed project and is the result of general development in the area, not directly City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 25, 1987 Page 2 the result of implementation of the proposed project. The intersection's volume/capacity ratio during the p.m. peak hour would improve from 0.94 to 0.91 with implementation of the project and the proposed mitigation measures. Mitigation measures proposed by the project would actually improve the Level of Service at this intersection from E to D during the midday peak hour. Figure 6 illustrates existing and projected levels of service at key intersections with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. Figures 7, 8, 9, 10 and ll illustrate proposed road configurations with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. 2. The traffic impact of these alternatives was evaluated and the results are summarized in the following Table l. 3. Forecast daily traffic volumes and resultant LOS are shown in Figures 4 and 5 for the two project scenarios - 5th Avenue open in Figure 4 and severed as a through road in Figure 5. To ease comparison of these future alternatives with the No Project scenario, Table 4 was developed. An examination of Table 4 indicates clearly that very few "order of magnitude" changes in level of service would occur under either project alternative. This should not be surprising since the number of trips added/diverted is relatively small compared to background volumes, and because this traffic would "fan out" in different directions. One LOS shift, specifically on 5th Avenue between J and K Streets, would actually represent a long-range improvement form LOS "C" to LOS "B" with 5th closed to through traffic in the shopping center expansion. The only critical level of service degradation from the No Project scenario would affect I Street between Broadway and 5th Avenue, specifically under the link closure option. Approximately 1,O00 more vehicles per day would use this segment of road than under the No Project scenario. This would be an increase sufficiently large to just exceed the LOS D/E threshold for a Residential Collector. As discussed on page 31 of the EIR, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to reduce potential impacts on I Street. These measures are summarized below: 4th Avenue/I Street Restripe the eastbound and westbound approaches to one left-turn lane and one optional straight or right-turn lane. Prohibit parking on the eastbound and westbound approaches. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 25, 1987 Page 3 5th Avenue/I Street Restripe the northbound approach on 5th Avenue to one left-turn lane and optional straight or right-turn lane. Prohibit parking on the northbound approach. 4. The fiscal analysis of the project has been subjected to more detailed evaluation, cross checking and greater independent analysis. This has resulted in more information in the final EIR; however, the basic conclusions remain the same: a. The project, with street closure and mitigation measures, could not be financed with private funds and tax increment funds alone. The use of sales tax revenue funds would be necessary. b. The partial or full depression of 5th Avenue would result in an additional cost of $7-18 million. c. The no project alternative would, at best, result in no increase in tax revenue but more likely a decline in sales tax. The above conclusion is sensitive to a number of factors, most notably the projected volume of taxable sales revenue from the Center and the projected cost of a redevelopment. In this analysis, the increase in sales tax revenues from the redeveloped Center is measured as the increase over sales tax assuming no redevelopment. However, the decline of taxable sales under the No Project alternative, as projected by Homart, may not occur; and instead total sales tax revenues from the project may remain at 1986 levels. Under these circumstances the 20-year total present value of project net revenues would be $2,840,400 rather than $4,651,000 when measured against the declining sales assumption. Another issue for consideration is if sales tax revenues generated by the project are less optimistic than projected by Homart. If, for example, actual sales volumes are only 85% or 75% of that projected, the total present value of net revenues to the City would be $2,214,500 or $590,132, respectively. There is also the possibility that the projected cost of redevelopment will exceed the estimates assumed in this analysis, causing the City to bear higher debt service payments. For example, should San Diego Gas and Electric Company not cover the cost of the gas main relocation, total project cost would increase by $500,000, and net revenues to the City would decrease to a total present value net revenue of $4,140,800. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 25, 1987 Page 4 Additionally, the present value calculations performed in this analysis apply a 10% discount rate to coincide with anticipated bond interest rates. The applied discount rate also assumes a relatively constant level of inflation. If instead the level of inflation significantly rises during the 20 year ten~ of bond repayment, a 12% discount rate may be more appropriate. Assuming a 12% discount factor, the net present value of the project to the City would be $3,535,300. Although the analysis is sensitive to the number of factors discussed above, the fiscal impact to the City continues to remain positive and varies only in the total amount of net revenues the City will realize. To the extent that revenues to the City exceed the projected costs, it is advantageous for the City to apply portions of the sales tax revenues to redevelopment costs and debt service. Although sales tax revenues have not been previously applied to redevelopment projects within the City, there are no legal impediments to such an approach. WPC 361 7P '-- Proposed Mitigation Figure 8 4th Avenue & 'H' Street -26- figure I. 4{ _~ Proposed Mitigation '1' Street East & West of 4th Avenue -27- 5th AVENUE ~ , ............................. , I = '-- Proposed Mitigation Fioure ~o fith A~nu~ South o! 'l~ Str~t t~ % 'o ~' 0 ,/O 1~ Chule '~ Center Figure 3 FORECAST ADT'S & LOS: LEGEND NO PROJECT SCENARIO xx.xx ADT (1000's) C Level Of Service Chula Center Figure 4 FORECAST ADT'S & LOS: LEGEND PROJECT TRAFFIC ADDED, xx.xx ADT (lO00's) 5TH AVENUE OPEN c Level of Service Figure 5 FORECAST ADT'S & LOS.' L_EGEND PROJECT TRAFFIC ADDED, xx.xx ADT ¢1000's) 5TH AVENUE CLOSED c Level Of Service City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 25, 1987 Page 1 2. PUBLIC HEARING: )~ajor Use Permit PCC-87-5M; request to demolish an existing clubhouse and build a new facility at 88 "L" Street - San Diego Country Club A. BACKGROUND The applicant, the San Diego Country Club is requesting a major use permit to demolish the existing 23,000 sq. ft. clubhouse and construct a new facility with a proposed gross floor area of 36,140 sq. ft. The clubhouse and surrounding golf course are zone S-90, a holding area zone which requires a major use permit for operation of a golf course and country club. The golf course and country club have been in existence at that location since 1921. The original environmental analysis of this project determined that there would be a significant impact due to historical and cultural resources and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared. When the Planning Commission considered the final EIR for this project they determined that because of the modifications to the structure noted previously there would be no significant impact and that a Negative Declaration should be prepared. The Montgomery Planning Committee, at its meeting of February 18, 1987, found that the project has no significant environmental effects and recommended adoption of a negative declaration. They also voted to recommend approval of the proposed project with inclusion of an additional condition that access to the Club be reviewed by the City Engineer to address the issue of the safety of right-hand turn movements from "L" Street to the site. That condition has been incorporated into the recommendation section of this report as condition H. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on EIR 86-2. 2. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion to approve the request, PCC-87-SM, to construct a new building for use as a Count~ Club subject to the following conditions: a. The site plan submitted by the applicant shall be revised to show: 1. Adequate turn around for fire vehicles subject to approval by the City Fire Marshal, and City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 25, 1987 Page 2 2. An approved apparatus access roadw~ extended to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building. b. The applicant shall provide two fire hydrants to serve the project, the exact location and type to be determined by the Fire Marshal. c. The proposed project shall be submitted for review and approval by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. d. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan to show mitigation of the loss of mature trees on site, subject to review and approval by the City Landscape Architect. e. An additional two feet of dedication is required for "L" Street along the full length of the sites northern boundary. f. Two 250 watt HPSV street lights are required on "L" Street, the location to be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. g. The major use permit allows a maximum of 485 members for the facility at this location. h. Traffic safety issues relating to right hand turn movements from eastbound "L" Street to the clubhouse shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zoning and land use North R-1 Single family residential South R-l, RU-29 Single family residential, multiple family apartments East R-1 Single family residential West C-36 General commercial uses Existing site characteristics The project site is a 160 acre private golf course and country club, located at 88 "L" Street between Third Avenue and Hilltop Drive. The present clubhouse located in the northwest corner of the site has approximately 23,000 square feet of space and is serviced by a 148 space parking lost adjacent to "L" Street. The present facility is surrounded by approximately 123 fully mature eucalyptus, pepper and scrub trees which line the northern edge of the golf course. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 25, 1987 Page 4 In response to the concerns expressed by opponents of the project, staff requested the the Country Club perform an architectural and structural survey based upon the Historical Building code to determine the feasibility of making the existing building safe in terms of the structure and fire safety. The County Club has submitted a survey performed by Bokal Kelley-Markham architects which determined that the clubhouse could be made safe at a cost of approximately $100,000. That figure, however, does not include expansion of the existing facility or remodeling. The Country Club has stated that not withstanding the issue of building safety, the size and design of the present clubhouse is inadequate for their needs, and the location of the building makes significant expansion infeasible. The original structure was designed to accommodate 125 persons while the Club's membership today totals 415, with 70 additional social memberships. The present facility could not be expanded without encroaching into the surrounding golf course, or without bringing the building into closer proximity to "L" Street. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed demolition and reconstruction of the clubhouse represents no major change in the existing land use and could be appropriately accommodated at that location subject to conditions outlined by the Engineering Department, Fire Department, City Landscape Architect, and the Design Review Committee in order to bring the site and proposed project into compliance with City standards. It should be noted, however, that the major use permit application proposes to construct the new facility to serve the needs of existing membership only. In this respect, although the building size has expanded there are not anticipated increases in traffic generation or parking demand. Any significant increases in the membership of the Club will require modification of the major use permit, and the issue of increased traffic, parking, and potential land use conflicts with surrounding residences would need to be addressed at that time. Condition G limits the membership accordingly to 485 members total. Staff is also of the opinion that the existing building has historical interest to the residents of the City of Chula Vista. Rather than demolish the existing building, the applicant should explore the possibility of relocating the existing structure to another site or incorporating the north facade or portions thereof into the new clubhouse design. The building could be stored on Country Club property on an interim basis pending location to a new site to accommodate another use. These are suggestions by staff and not conditions of approval. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 25, 1987 Page 3 The clubhouse was designed in 1921 by one of the region's most prominent architects, Richard S. Requa. Famous in Southern California architectural history for the development of his "Southern California" style and several significant architectural and planning projects, Requa chose the Mission Revival style, popular during the 1920's, for the clubhouse. The one-story building has a stucco exterior, a flat roof with parapets, extensive red tile trim and a simulated bell tower.' When completed in 1921, it presented an expression of Requa s work as influenced by his years of architectural association with Irving Gill. Although the clubhouse has been modified and expanded over the years, the Resource Conservation Commission has recommended to the City Council that the clubhouse be designated as a historical site. That recommendation, however, does not place any restrictions over the ability of the applicant to make any modifications, alterations, or to demolish the structure. Proposed use The applicant proposes to demolish the existing structure and construct a new clubhouse at the same location. The proposed clubhouse would be a two-story structure of approximately 36,140 sq. ft. stepped into the slope of the property in order to present a one-story appearance when viewed from "L" Street. The existing parking lot would be expanded to accommodate 197 parking spaces, an increase in 50 spaces over what is now presently available. Although the square footage of the new structure represents a significant increase over the present facility, the applicant has stated that use of the proposed building remains in conformance with existing activity, and that the intensity of the use will not increase. D. ANALYSIS The request to demolish the present Country Club and construct a new facility has elicited a significant amount of controversy over the issue of the historical significance of the existing building. During processing of the major use permit, the department received a petition signed by 102 members of the San Diego Country Club requesting that the department and the City Council delay approval of any permit for any demolition of the San Diego Country Club until a structural survey of the existing building has been performed and submitted using the 1985 Historical Building code as a basis for analysis rather than the Uniform Building Code. Subsequent petitions have been submitted by members of the Country Club who are in opposition to demolition of the building which have been signed by approximately 225 City residents. These petitions have requested that the request to build a new club be denied in favor of retaining the existing building due to its historical significance. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 25, 1987 Page 5 With respect to the conditions of approval outlined in Section B of this report, conditions A, B, E, and F, address engineering and fire safety requirements needed to bring the proposed project into conformance with City standards. Condition C, that the project submitted for review by the Design Review Committee, is a condition that reflects the general requirement within Montgomery that all projects subject to major use permits undergo Design Review and approval prior to construction. Condition D, which requires the applicant to submit a landscape plan for review and approval by the City Landscape Architect serves to address the issue of the loss of several mature trees on site. The landscape plan should compensate for the tree loss and buffer the parking area from the adjacent street. The Montgomery Planning Committee, at its meeting of February 18, 1987, expressed concerns about traffic safety along "L" Street with respect to right hand turning movements to the site. It was pointed out that the approach to the club from the west is dark, the slope and curve of the property make visibility difficult, and the turning radius into the club is difficult to maneuver. The Committee voted to recommend that the City Engineer again review access to the site to determine what measures should be taken by the applicant to improve the present situation. The Engineering Department has been advised of this concern and is reviewing the project at this time. E. FINDINGS 1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. The Country Club is a use which has existed at that location for 66 years, and serves as a recreational asset to the community at large. Expansion of the facility will enhance that asset. 2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. Since the proposed project does not involve expansion of membership, there are no anticipated traffic or parking impacts which would be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing in the vicinity. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 25, 1987 Page 6 3. That the proposed use will co~ply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. Upon approval of a major use permit the proposed project complies with Chapter 19.70 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. 4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. The proposed project is in compliance with the Chula Vista General Plan. WPC 3603P/2652P negative declaration PROJECT N~qE: Demolition of the existing San Diego County Country Club House and its replacement with a new facility PROJECT LOCATION: 88 "L" Street, Chula Vista PROJECT APPLICANT: San Diego County Country Club CASE NO: EIR-86-2 . DATE: October 24, 1986 A. Project Setting History of the Club The Club was formed in 1896 and used a portion of Balboa Park for course and Clubhouse until the 1915 Exposition required the site. They merged with the Point Loma Golf Club and used those facilities until the eve of World War I. In 1920, the Club members decided to establish and own their own Club at a permanent location and acquired the present 160 acre site. Plans for the new structure were prepared by Requa, construction undertaken, and the new Clubhouse was completed by the fall of 1921. During World War II the Club survived with the assistance of a lease with Rohr Aircraft Employees Association for use of the premises as a recreation center. As a cultural en'tity, the Club's membership has always included persons prominent in the County's business and professional life. The course itself is considered one of the finest in the County. [M. L. Ward, 1967] The Original Clubhouse On September 9, 1921, the San Diego Union described the Clubhouse and course in an article entitled "Magnificent New San Diego Country Club at Chula Vista is Inspected by Visitors at Formal Reception." [SD Union 9/1/21, pg. 8, sec. A] The room descriptions from that article and the historic photograph of the interior, led to the belief that the original Clubhouse contained a large central lounge {which included the current ballroom, entry and office area), an adjacent card room, a dining room, a sun dining room, a kitchen, a men's grill, a women's lounge and dressing rooms, and men's dressing rooms. "One of the most charming features of the building is the terrace facing west, with its comprehensive view of the entire club holdings and picturesque vista of the distant sea." Modifications to the Clubhouse The 1921 historic Clubhouse has had several additions, alterations and refurbishments. In 1922, caddie accommodations were built. In 1923, a city of chula vista planning department Cr~YOF ' environmental review section _CHUL,~ VISTAs,. new golf shop was added and the old shop was converted into a lounge room. In 1927, the men's locker room was extended and a shower was added to the ladies' locker room. In 1946, the men's locker room was again enlarged and a new golf shop was built. In 1950 alterations were made to the ladies' locker room, the location of the bar was changed and the grill was enlarged. During the 1950's the lounge, dining room, locker rooms, grill golf shop and kitchen were completely redecorated and/or refurnished. In the late 50's more space for hand carts and electric carts was added, alterations to the porch were made and a heating and ventilation plant was installed. (SDCC 1897-1959, Dr. Leo Langlois) In the course of these alterations some architectural features of the 1921 building were lost or abused. It is possible that only the north or front elevation remains true to its original appearance, all other elevations having been modified. B. Project Description The San Diego Country Club is proposing to build a new 36,140 square foot clubhouse facility in place of their existing 23,000 square foot clubhouse at 88 "L" Street. The existing clubhouse was built in the early 1920's and has had additions to it which altered the appearance and internal function. A major use permit application will be processed by the City of Chula Vista. At the City's request, the application al so addresses the entire San Diego Country Club. The major use permit is required since the property is within the Montgomery community which was recently annexed to the City of Chula Vista. However, the property is zoned S-90, a County zone, which requires a major use permit for a private country club and golf course li.e. section 2905 of the County zoning ordinance). The site plan and elevations accompanying the application indicate the building characteristics and parking arrangement. Since the proposed use is the same as the existing use no significant impact to surrounding properties is anticipated. In addition, the access to the club property is not proposed to be substantially changed. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The project conforms to the General Plan designation of "Parks and Public Open Space"-Golf Course, and to the S-90 zoning subject to the issuance of a major use pemit. D. Identification of Environmental Effects The original environmental analysis of this project determined that there would be a significant impact due to historical and cultural resources and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared. When the Planning Commission considered the final EIR for this project, they determined that because of the modifications to the structure noted above there would be no significant impact and that a negative declaration should be prepared. E. Findings of Insignificant Impact 1. Because of the many modifications to the building, the Planning Commission has found that there will be no significant impact on cultural or historical resources. 2. The site has been previously graded and developed and, therefore, there are no natural resources known to be present. The area also has no substantial natural hazards known to be present. 3. All public facilities necessary to the project. There will be no §rowth inducing impacts. 4. The project conforms to the General Plan and, therefore, no short-term goals will be attained to the disadvantage of long-term goals. F. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Mando Liua9, Associate Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Duane Bazzel, Associate Planner Gene Grady, Building and Housing Department Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer Applicant's Agent: Tony Ambrose HCH & Associates ~877 View, ridge Avenue San Diego, CA 92123 2. Documents City of Chula Vista General Plan City of Chula Vista Municipal Code Planning Commission Minutes of September 10, 1956 EIR-86-2 The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. EN 6 (Rev. 5/85) WPC O175P/3294P .~.~k( ~.~ EN 6 (Rev. 5/85) m~ city o! chula vista planning department CI~YOF environmental review section CHULA VJ~'A.. SITE PLAN I ' · City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 25, 1987 Page 1 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-87-19; request to vary from standard parking requirements at 475 "H" Street In Sang Company A. BACKGROUND 1. This item involves a proposal to convert approximately 6,400 sq. ft. of floor space from storage use to retail use within the Indoor Swap Meet building located at 475 "H" Street. The requested variance is to waive the requirement for 32 additional off-street parking spaces to serve the expanded retail floor area. 2. The project is exempt from environmental review as a Class 5 exemption. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion to approve the request, ZAV-87-19, to waive the requirement for 32 additional parking spaces to serve 6,400 sq. ft. of additional retail floor area at 475 "H" Street subject to the following conditions: a. The variance is approved for a period of six months, or until August 25, 1987. b. The Zoning Administrator may grant a maximum of two six month extensions upon the written request of the applicant and subject to the provision of updated survey information to support the request. c. The opening in the wall along the easterly property line between the center and the hospital shall be permanently sealed prior to occupancy of the additional floor area. The applicant in conjunction with the owner of the center shall take steps to eliminate parking by hospital staff on center property. The effectiveness of these steps shall be considered by the Zoning Administrator in deciding whether or not to grant an extension of this variance. d. Any change in conditions or complaints shall cause the permit to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation. e. The permit shall be returned to the Planning Commission for review no later than August 25, 1988. Failure to comply with any condition of approval shall cause this permit to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions of revocation. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 25, 1987 Page 2 C. DISCUSSION Existing site characteristics. The subject property is a 7.8 acre commercial center located at the northeast corner of Fifth Avenue and "H" Street. The building in question is the largest structure on the site and contains three other uses and vacant floor space as well as the swap meet. Eight other structures containing a variety of retail and service commercial uses are distributed around the site along with 500 off-street parking spaces. Proposed request. The request is to convert approximately 6,400 sq. ft. of floor space within the building from storage use to retail use without the provision of any additional off-street parking. As storage space, the floor area is not required to be served by off-street parking. As retail space, however, the Code would require one off-street space for every 200 sq. ft. of floor area, or a total of 32 additional spaces to serve the 6,400 sq. ft. of new retail floor area. D. ANALYSIS The swap meet occupies a total of approximately 31,800 sq. ft. of floor area. This total includes 25,400 sq. ft. of retail floor area with spaces for 142 individual vendors and 6,400 sq. ft. of space designated for storage. In actuality, the swap meet has little if any need for storage space because the individual vendors are responsible for their own stocking and sales. Consequently, the storage area generally sits vacant -- contiguous to but separated from the retail sales area by partitions and gates. The 6,400 sq. ft. has been restricted from retail use by the City because of limited off-street parking. Existing and potential uses in the balance of the center are required by Code to be served by 373 of the 500 total off-street spaces, leaving 127 spaces to serve the swap meet. Based upon the requirement of one space for every 200 sq. ft. of retail floor area, the sales area has been limited to 25,400 sq. ft. 1127 parking spaces x 200 sq. ft. per space = 25,400 sq. ft.). This has left a balance of 6,400 sq. ft. designated for storage but generally left unused. The problem in accommodating the swap meet in the available floor space is two fold. First, the prior tenant in the building, the Ardan Store, was a retail/warehouse hybrid which occupied a total of 41,000 sq. ft. (30% more than the swap meet) but which utilized only 21,000 sq. ft. for retail sales (20% less than the swap meet currently uses and 5~ less than that proposed). The remaining 20,000 sq. ft. was used by Ardan for warehousing. Thus in theory the prior occupant of the floor space would generate less demand for parking than even a typical retail establishment. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 25, 1987 Page 3 Secondly, as noted above, the swap meet consists of small individual vendors which can utilize every square foot for retail sales. According to the applicant's floor plan, the proposed retail expansion would provide space for 40 additional vendor spaces or a total of 172 vendor spaces within the 31,800 sq. ft. of floor area. Consequently, if the maximum number of vendors were operating at once and each drove an automobile to the facility, the demand for "employee" parking alone would exceed the Code requirement of 159 parking spaces to serve the retail floor area in question. (Although in actuality, most of the small vendor cubicles shown on the floor plan have been combined into larger spaces whereby there are currently 65 rather than 132 vendors, and not all are open for business at the same time.) Thus the swap meet has the potential to generate a much greater demand for parking than the typical retail use. On the other hand, the actual demand for parking can obviously vary from that required by Code, particularly in a commercial center with a variety of retail and service commercial uses. Some of the factors effecting the demand include the mix of uses, respective hours of operation, and the relative success of the businesses involved. In this regard, the applicant has submitted information on the actual parking use within the center. Parking surveys were conducted on four separate days, with counts taken at lO:O0 a.m., 2:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. on each day. The results of the peak counts both prior to and following the December 8, 1986, opening of the swap meet, along with the hours of operation of each use within the center, are shown on the two exhibits attached hereto. Based on the nature of the swap meet operation, the mix of uses in the center and the overlapping hours of operation, we would be reluctant to recommend a variation from the parking standards. Many of the uses could be expected to share an early evening weekday peak, including the movie theater, roller rink, restaurants and swap meet. The survey information, however, indicates that only about 30% of the available parking was being utilized at peak prior to the establishment of the swap meet and this increased to about 60% usage, or an additional 150 cars, following the opening. The Planning Department's random checks have confirmed these findings. The fact that ample parking is currently available does not mean that will always be the case. The swap meet has only been in operation for a short period of time, and the existing situation may simply reflect a new business which has not yet found its market. Certainly the swap meet has the potential to place an enormous demand on parking. An additional factor is that many hospital employees use center parking along the easterly property line--made convenient by the existence of an opening in the wall providing pedestrian access between the two properties. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 25, 1987 Page 4 In recognition of the potential problems, the applicant has requested to use the additional floor area on a trial six month basis subject to review at that time, or earlier if complaints are received regarding parking. The applicant has stated that the other tenants in the center believe there is adequate parking available and that an expanded swap meet operation would have a beneficial impact on their own businesses. We believe this approach is supportable. The nature of the use and the interior arrangement of the space would allow the additional floor area to be converted to or reconverted from retail use without much difficulty and without imposing an undue hardship on the applicant. It would be our recommendation to approve the variance for an initial six month period with two additional six month extensions subject to Zoning Administrator approval. The applicant would be required to request the extension and provide updated survey information to support the request. The application would then be returned to the Commission for review. We have also included a condition to address the problem of hospital employees using center parking. Any change in conditions or complaints would cause the permit to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation. E. FINDINGS 1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in developing the property for the needs of the owner consistent with the regulations of the zone; but in this context, personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits, and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance. Further, a previous variance can never have set a precedent, for each case must be considered only on its individual merits. The requested retail expansion is located within an existing building and center which has evolved through the years with various uses having different peak parking demands. The mixture of uses and hours of operation are unique to this center. The inability to add parking would create a hardship in leaving the proposed 6,000 sq. ft. retail area vacant. 2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors. The swap meet is a permitted use in an existing structure within an existing commercial center. Other properties in the same zone and vicinity do not have the variety of uses with varying hours of operations allowing for the same efficiency of shared parking. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 25, 1987 Page 5 3. That the authorizing of such variance will mot be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter or the public interest. The conditions of approval will ensure that the granting of the variance will not become a detriment to adjacent tenants or property. Specific review periods will allow for Planning Department monitoring of the impacts. 4. That the authorizing of such variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. The variance as conditioned will facilitate the expansion of a use consistent with the retail commercial designation shown on the General Plan for this site. WPC 3614P/O426P SQUARE VANCE CHULA VISTA ~ i ROOSEVELT ~ , ROOS OTIS STREET GENERAL ! ~, HOSR STREET ' PROJECT '~EA ~ ....... ~ SHASTA ST. "I" ~ STREET .... ~ , ~ ~ w .: ', -- ~ r __ ~MORTH L, 75 H 8t reet