Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 2001/05/23 r \/ ,/,J'J I '7. /~ ;< MINUTES OF THE ',' CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, May 23, 2001 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL! MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Present: Commissioner Hall, Cortes, Willett, McCann, O'Neill Absent: Commissioner Castaneda, Thomas Staff Present: Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning and Building Beverly Blessent, Principal Planner Richard Zumwalt, Associate Planner Harold Phelps, Associate Planner Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Vice Chair O'Neill ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None 1. PUBLIC HEARING: ZA V-01-18; Consideration of a request to allow a property line fence in excess of six feet located at 281 Bonita Canyon Road. Applicant: Ron & Sona Lutsko. Background: Beverly Blessent reported that the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a fence in excess of 6 feet for the fence separating their property and the neighbor to the east, Mr. & Mrs. Davenport. The Lutsko property is approximately .57 acres in size with a 143 ft. wide front property, a 62 ft. wide rear property line, and a 248 ft. long eastern property line. The proposed fence is located along the eastern property line beginning approximately 75 ft. from the front property line. The existing fence from the front property line to approximately 100 feet is a 5 to 6 foot high block fence with the remainder of the fencing to the rear property line being a 5 foot high chain link fence. The applicant is proposing to construct the fence just inside or attached to the existing fencing. The proposed fence is divided into two segments. Segment 1 begins approx. 75 ft. from the property line and extends to approx. 82 ft. to a point adjacent to applicant's deck. Due to elevation changes, the fence varies from 8.5 to 10.5 ft. Due to slope and improvements (raised planters, stairs and decking along the adjacent parcel) the proposed fence height measured from the neighboring "usable grade" ranges from 6 to 8.5 ft.. Segment 2 begins 6 ft. from the end of the first segment and extends 24 ft to just below the adjacent property owner's batting cage and deck. The height from finished grade on either side of this segment varies in height from 8.5 to 12.5 ft. Fence height measured from "usable grade" Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - May 23, 2001 on the adjacent property side ranges from 2.5 to 7.5 ft. This segment was constructed without the necessary building permits, but was allowed to remain by staff while this variance application is pending. The entire span of the fence is proposed to be constructed of plywood panels mounted to 4 x 4 posts covered on the applicant's side with decorative bamboo/grass material. The applicant is requesting the additional height to address concerns related to structures existing on the adjacent property; they are: 1. Presently there is nothing from preventing balls from escaping the batting cage into the applicant's yard. 2. The adjacent property owner has constructed raised planters next to the existing block wall and the top of the planters are between 2.5 to 3 ft. from the top of the existing wall. These raised planters, resulting from no action of the applicant, puts the applicant in violation of the California Building Code relating to enclosures surrounding swimming pools. The applicant is requesting the increased fence height in this portion of the yard to meet this requirement. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission approve the requested variance for a fence. Commission Discussion: Commissioner McCann inquired if the necessary permits were obtained for the batting cage and, if the variance were to be granted, what, if any, would be the ramifications if it is then in violation of the CC&R's. Ms. Blessent responded that the necessary permits were obtained for the batting cage. Ann Moore responded that the CC&R's is not a matter for the City to enforce and the Planning Commission is solely to consider whether there are findings for granting the variance request. If in granting the variance there is a violation of the CC&R's, then it would be up to private parties to litigate. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED. Ron Lutsko, applicant, 281 Bonita Canyon Drive, Bonita, CA emphasized that he had a permitted fence of legal height prior to his neighbor making modifications, which then put him in violation of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the variance would not have been requested were it not for the safety hazards created by having a commercial batting cage with an electronic pitching machine in a residential neighborhood. Furthermore, the batting cage and deck structures were permitted after they were constructed. Mr. Lutsko addressed the two letters that were included in staff's report, which were in opposition to the variance citing that the fence height would be an eye-sore and an obstruction to their view. He indicated that because Mr. Davenport obtained his permits after-the-fact, he was not even Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - May 23, 2001 allowed the opportunity to voice his opposition to the batting cage and it too, obstructs his view and is a safety hazard. Additionally, Mr. Lutsko addressed the two letters that expressed support for the variance, in which they state that the foremost issue that the City should consider when deliberating whether to recommend approval of the variance, is public safety. In conclusion, Mr. Lutsko stated that for past 2.5 years they have not been able to resolve this issue as neighbors and is, therefore, requesting mediation with the City. Commissioner Hall inquired of Mr. Lutsko if the City ever responded to the dozen or so issues pertaining to violations on Mr. Davenport's property that he brought to the attention of the City that were not in compliance with City codes. Mr. Lutsko responded that the only answer he got from the City was that he now has a permit, notwithstanding the fact that they were all built or installed before acquiring the necessary permits. Cliff Davenport, <neighbor} 283 Bonita Canyon Drive, Bonita, CA gave an overhead presentation which included reviewing the effectiveness of the containment mechanisms built into the batting cage; a letter from Radar Ready, Inc. which states that they clocked approx. 30 balls and the speeds range as low as 35 mph to 57 mph.; an "asbuilt survey of 283 Bonita Canyon; the back view from his property of Mr. Lutskos fence, and other supporting materials. Mr. Davenport stated that the batting cage is enclosed on four sides (sides, rear and overhead). Additionally, there is a back-stop, and a chain link fence, therefore, the likelihood of the balls flying into the neighbor's yard is slim to none Mr. Davenport showed a series of pictures, which explains the way the balls get into Mr. Lutsko's yard. The slides show his dog playing with the balls at the deck level adjacent to the batting cage. He stated that the balls then roll down the slope and under the fence. Mr. Davenport presented to the Commission an "asbuilt" survey conducted by KAPPA Surveying & Mapping Inc. of his property at 283 Bonita Canyon indicating what the side property line is. According to the survey, the block wall that is shared by both neighbors and the plywood fence are on Mr. Davenport's property. In summary, Mr. Davenport urged the Commission to not grant the variance for the following reasons: · Mr. Lutsko hasn't proved that the balls are escaping the batting cage as they are being pitched and going into his yard. · Mr. Lutsko's plywood fence is an eye-sore on the unfinished side facing the Davenport's side, which is also visible to other neighbors as well. · There are 30 people who submitted their signatures and 4 or 5 letters protesting the proposed fence. Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - May 23, 2001 Ms.Blessent clarified a couple of points. If the variance is approved, a building permit would be required. A variance would still be required even if there are errors in measurement in terms of the height of the planters or decking on the Davenport's property. Commissioner Cortes asked Mr. Davenport if he would be open to having the unfinished plywood fence finished on his side. Mr. Davenport responded that he would agree to having a 6 ft. high brick wall, finished on both sides. Mrs. Davenport stated that there was never any contact or effort made by the Lutskos to meet to discuss the issues and try to reach an agreement. Commissioner McCann stated that he had the opportunity to visit both properties and indicated that upon taking a look at the batting cage, it did appear to him that it has proper containment of the balls. Cmr. McCann further stated that he would strongly recommend deferring action on this item in order to allow both parties and the City to go through mediation. Commissioner Willett stated that he too agrees with Cmr. McCann's recommendation to defer action and schedule mediation. Rosa Maria Aguirre, 285 Bonita Canyon Dr., Bonita, CA stated that she is in opposition to granting the variance. Ms. Aguirre further stated that the fence height would obstruct the view from her property, for which she paid a premium price to have the view. She further indicated that this is not a public safety issue as she lives directly opposite the Davenports and the batting cage faces her lower canyon property as does the Lutskos, and has never seen any balls projecting out of the batting cage. Brenda Aguirre, 285 Bonita Canyon Dr., Bonita, CA stated that she has never witnessed a ball flying out of the batting cage, however, she has seen Mr. Davenport's dog playing with the balls at the bottom of the canyon. Commission O'Neill expressed concern with the Commission being placed in a position as arbitrators in what appears to be a civil matter between neighbors. The issue at hand is whether or not to grant a fence variance, which may be in violation of the CC&R's, and further compounding it based on Mr. Lutskos request to be released from the indemnification agreement. Ms. Moore responded that she was not aware of any provision in the CC&R's that specifically limit the height of the fence. Commissioner McCann responded that the reason why the CC&R's were brought up is because many of the letters that were submitted in opposition to the variance stated that it would be a violation. Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - May 23, 2001 Ms. Moore stated that she would not be able to comment on whether it is or is not a violation of the CC&R's. The matter that is before the Commission is the variance and State law requires that certain findings need to be made in order to grant the variance. If the Commission feels they can make the necessary findings, then they can grant an approval. If, in fact, there is a violation of the CC&R's then it would be up to the private parties to take action in court to make that determination. With respect to the indemnification; it would be Counsel's recommendation that it remain as a provision of the variance, which is a standard provision that is required in all variances and basically says that the applicant would defend the City if we are sued as a result of granting the variance in the first place, that is to their benefit. The indemnification is recorded against the property. Commissioner O'Neill stated that although he could support continuing this item to allow the two parties to mediate, he is hesitant in recommending that the City get involved in it as a third party. Commisssioner Hall stated that he too would recommend mediation through a private mediation service, however, he would strongly recommend that the City be in attendance simply to be available to answer any questions that may arise pertaining to Code issues. Mr. Sandoval stated that for the record, the applicant should be asked if he is willing to have this item continued for 60 days to a date certain Uuly 25th) with the understanding they are seeking mediation. He further stated that it's his understanding that when San Diego Mediation gets involved, they don't necessarily involve staff through the process, but they do touch base with staff to make sure that the remedy that they come up with is not in opposition with City regulations. Commissioner O'Neill stated that he could support having a continuance for 60 or even 90 days to allow time in what can be a lengthy process. If at the end of 60 days there is still no progress in mediation, the Commission would then proceed with taking action on the variance at the July 25th, 2001 Planning Commission. Ms. Moore clarified that the purpose for mediation is to resolve the dispute between the parties, not to make a decision on the variance. The variance is a decision that will be made by the Planning Commission when it comes back on July 25,h Commissioner McCann asked Mr. Lutsko and Mr. Davenport if they would be agreeable to go to mediation. They both responded affirmatively. MSC (McCann/Cortes) (5-0-2-0) to continue public hearing to date certain July 25, 2001, to allow both parties 60 days to seek outside mediation. Motion carried. Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - May 23, 2001 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-01-07; Consideration of City-initiate request for amendments and additions to the Planned Community (PC) District Regulations for San Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA), to add floor area ratio regulations and amend coverage regulations. The San Miguel Ranch project site is 743.1 acres located east and north of Proctor Valley Road., south of Sweetwater Reservoir and Mother Miguel Mtn. and west of the Rolling Hills Ranch area. City Initiated. Background: Richard Zumwalt, Associate Planner, reported that on October 19, 1999 the City Council approved the San Miguel SPA, which included the District Regulations and acts the zoning for the property. At the time of this adoption, it did not contain Floor Area Ratios and the developer, Trimark Pacific did not intend to include the FAR's and their inclusion was inadvertently overlooked, therefore, the City initiated this as a clean-up item to address this oversight. Staff recommends the PC District Regulations amendment to add the FAR regulations and amend a couple of the lot coverage standards. The FAR is important because it acts as the ratio of the permitted building area to the lot area and it limits the permitted square footage of new residences and works in conjunctions with other regulations such as heights, setbacks, lot coverage, and design guidelines to control the design, bulk and massing of new residences. A comparison was made of the FAR of other similar planned communities like Rolling Hills Ranch and Sunbow and found that the proposed FAR's are consistent with these communities. Staff recommends approval of the amendment for the following reasons: 1. The proposed FAR a similar to other planned communities 2. The regulation of the building areas, by selecting floor area ratio or maximum building area value, which ever is less, will have the following effects: a. The FAR's will control the permitted building on the smaller lots. b. The maximum building area value will set a cap on building size that will ensure the homes on larger lots will be compatible with other homes in the neighborhood. c. All residential development must comply with the design guidelines to ensure the homes will be well designed and there will be no adverse effects as a result of bulk, mass or design of the homes. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt the Addendum to FSEIR 97-02 in accordance with CEQA and adopt Resolution PCM-Ol-07, recommending approval of the amendments and additions to the Planned Community PC District Regulations for the San Miguel Ranch SPA in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the Draft Council Resolution and Ordinance. Public Hearing Opened. No public input. Planning Commission Minutes - 7 - May 23, 2001 Public Hearing Closed. MSC (Willett/O'Neill) (5-0-2-0) that the Planning Commission adopt the Addendum to FSEI R 97-02 in accordance with CEQA and adopt Resolution PCM-01-07, recommending to the City Council approval of the amendments and additions to the Planned Community PC District Regulations for the San Miguel Ranch SPA in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the Draft Council Resolution and Ordinance. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Tentative Subdivision Map PCS-01-04 to develop nine lots for single- family homes at the western extension of EI Loro Street. Applicant, Dan Irwin. Commissioner Cortes received notification of this project in the mail, therefore, he excused himself from the dais and will be abstaining on this item. Background: Harold Phelps reported that the applicant is proposing a 910t subdivision known as Vista Del Loro located on the western extension of EI Loro Street in the Montgomery area. The site is an undeveloped two-acre portion of property that was recently consol idated from portions of three parcels that are presently vacant. The combined parcels slope steadily from the northwest to southeast corner. The proposal is to develop nine single-family homes ranging in lot sizes from 7,000 sf to 10,000 sf. Additional fill-soil is needed to create a level western extension of EI Loro Street and to develop the pads for lots 1 through 4. A storm water drainage area is needed in the southeast corner of the subdivision that will moderately impact the usable lot areas of lots 1 through 4. This storm water drainage area will be designed to percolate storm water run-off for the entire subdivision as well as Preston Place. There will be an easement which will prohibit the property owners of lots 1 through 4 from paving or installing fixed accessory structures on the building pad or slabs to the rear of their properties. Additionally, there will be improvements on the parkway and sidewalk on EI Loro Street. Currently there is a 4.5 ft wide parkway that is without street trees and a 5 ft. wide sidewalk. As part of the conditions of approval, the parkway wi II be widened to 5 feet to allow the planting of an optimal tree species. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCS-O 1-04 recommending adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of the Vista Del Loro tentative Subdivision Map subject to conditions of approval. Commission Discussion: Commissioner Hall inquired if there is a greater potential for earth shifting and/or ground -settling on the soil-filled pads that could jeopardize the stability of those homes. Planning Commission Minutes - 8 - May 23, 2001 Mr. Phelps responded that the environmental document addressed these issues and the analysis conducted on said properties did not reveal any faults in that area, however, perhaps the applicant could address in further detail how they will be compacting the soil. Commissioner McCann stated that he is encouraged to see development of new single family homes in vacant lots in the western part of Chula Vista. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED. No public input. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. MSC (McCann/Hail) (4-0-2-1) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCS-01-04 recommending adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of the Vista Del Loro tentative Subdivision Map subject to conditions of approval. Motion carried with Commission Cortes abstaining. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS: None. ADJOURNMENT at 7:50 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of June 13,2001. ~y¡ Diana Vargas 0= Secretary to Planning Commission "---------- a __ ___ __ ....____.~__._.._._..._..__ - --- --- ._..-.._.~--~~_.._----_._------- ----.