Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1994/01/26 (2) City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of January 26, 1994 Page 1 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Site Plan and Architectural Review: DRC-94-1O; Construction of 51 single-familv dwellings on the undeveloped portion of the Bavona neighborhood within Rancho Del Rev - Kaufman and Broad A. BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting site plan and architectural approval for the construction of 51 homes on the undeveloped portion of the Bayona neighborhood located within the Rancho Del Rey Planned Community (see locator). Site plan and architectural review for single family development is normally undertaken by the Zoning Administrator. In this case, the matter has been referred directly to the Planning Commission because of the level of neighborhood concern. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached Planning Commission Resolution approving the site plan and architecture for DRC-94-1O based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. C. DISCUSSION On August 30, 1991, the 91-lot Bayona neighborhood received site plan and architectural approval by the Zoning Administrator. Subsequently, 40 homes were constructed by McMillin Communities. The 51 remaining lots are the subject matter of this application. Kaufman and Broad purchased the remaining lots and in September 1993, they presented a proposal to develop the remaining portion of Bayona with a new housing product. The new homes feature well articulated facades and accent architectural treatments, as well as a well-coordinated color and materials composition. However, these new homes are different from the existing Bayona homes in design and color composition. Based on these differences, the staff suggested that the developer meet with the existing Bayona residents to introduce the new design prior to a Zoning Administrator decision on the project. At the meeting, the residents raised two major issues: the architectural compatibility of the new homes with the existing neighborhood, and the quality and price of the new homes in relationship to their existing homes. Subsequent to the meeting, the residents appeared in front of the City Council to express their concern. They stated that the new homes needed to be architecturally compatible with their existing homes in order to maintain the character and value of their City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of January 26, 1994 Page 2 neighborhood. As a result, the Council directed staff to meet with the residents to acquaint them with the planning process, including any appeal procedures. Accordingly, a meeting was held with the Bayona residents on January 5, 1994. The staff, the applicant (Kaufman and Broad), and representatives of McMillin Communities met with the residents to determine if their concerns could be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. Kaufman and Broad presented revised drawings illustrating a number of refinements that they believed addressed issues raised by the residents at the previous meeting and in earlier written correspondence (please see attached). The building modifications included the deletion of decorative material, such as stone veneer and brick, and an increase in the number of homes with a barrel-type roof tile instead of the use of a flat tile. The residents welcomed the architectural changes, but indicated that the changes were insufficient to resolve the substantial differences in the finish materials, landscaping, and interior amenities between their homes and the new homes proposed by Kaufman and Broad. They indicated that the differences in architectural treatment and quality of the finish product would produce a distinctive change in neighborhood character and could result in a devaluation of their property values. The residents also indicated that before they could endorse the project, the stucco and roof color scheme would need to be changed to harmonize with the existing neighborhood color theme, and that individual home landscape design would need to be incorporated as part of the development proposal as was done in their existing neighborhood. Based on these unresolved concerns, the Zoning Administrator has forwarded the project to the Planning Commission for consideration. D. ANALYSIS The new housing design features similar articulation and architectural treatment, but has certain features such as the flat tile roofs, front porches, slightly longer overhangs, lattice work, and other minor differences which are not a part of the existing Bayona homes. Another difference is the proposed color scheme. The existing residences use a pastel color stucco with contrasting accent color fascias and trim and the garage doors and accents are painted the same color. The proposed new product features compatible earth tones but the garage doors are painted white on all models. The Rancho Del Rey Design Guidelines suggest that architectural styles not be mixed within a single project (neighborhood) and that each parcel maintain internal consistency. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of January 26, 1994 Page 3 Although the proposed project is noticeably different, the architectural style is similar and, in our opinion, compatible with the existing neighborhood. However, in order to create a better transition between the two projects, it is recommended that flat roof tile material be replaced with barrel tile four lots on each side of the street next to the existing homes, and roof tile colors be carefully coordinated with the colors used on the balance of the existing homes. In addition, one vacant lot exists at the comer of Elsa Drive and Rancho Del Rey Parkway which the applicant has agreed to duplicate colors and materials to match the existing houses on Elsa Drive. Based on the drawings of the project and the photographs of similar homes built by Kaufman and Broad in other communities, staff finds the project appropriate for the site, architecturally harmonious with the existing Bayona homes, and therefore in compliance with the site plan and architectural principles established in section 19.14.470 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (see attached). Based on these findings, staff recommends approval of the project subject to the conditions listed in the attached draft Planning Commission Resolution. (b:\drc-94lO.pch) RESOLUTION NO. DRC-94-10 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 51 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AT NEIGHBORHOOD 1561 (BAYONA) WITHIN THE RANCHO DEL REY PLANNED COMMUNITY. WHEREAS, a duly verified application for Zoning Administrator site plan and architectural approval was filed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on September 24, 1994 by Kaufman and Broad, and WHEREAS, said application requested site plan and architectural approval for the construction of 51 single family homes on the undeveloped portion of neighborhood 1561 (Bayona) of the Rancho Del Rey planned community, and WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator considered the site plan and architecture for the proposed development, but due to the concerns expressed by the residents of the area, and pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.14.050, referred this item to the Planning Commission, and WHEREAS, the Planning Department set the time and place for a hearing on said site plan and architectural review 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 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property and the 40 developed lots within the Bayona neigborhood at least ten days prior to the hearing, and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p.m., January 26, 1994 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed, and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the existing Environmental Impact Reports provide an adequate environmental analysis for the consideration of this project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION finds as follows: 1. That the proposed development is in substantial compliance with the site development regulations established in the Rancho Del Rey planned Community District Regulations and is consistent with the applicable design guidelines. 2. Based on the illustrations presented at the meeting, and as conditioned, the project site plan and architectural prerequisites set forth in the Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.14.470 have been satisfied. Resolution No. DRC-94-1O Page 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby approves the site plan and architecture of the proposed project subject to the following conditions: a. Lots 24-27 and 46-49 shall be developed with models using the barrel type roof in colors similar to the ones used in the exiting Bayona homes. b. The trellis featured on the base of the entry porch of plan 1 shall be replaced with a material more compatible with the existing residences, satisfactory to the Director of Planning. c. Where an offset in the front yard building setback is proposed between adjoining parcels it shall a minimum of five feet. No more than 3 buildings on adjoining parcels shall be constructed along the same setback line. d. A fencing program depicting the type of fences to be used along the canyon edge and street frontage shall be submitted to the Director of Planning for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. e. The optional wood deck shown on plans 2, 3 and 4 shall be a standard feature on lots facing the canyon or public right of way. f. The corner Lot 1 at Elsa Drive and Rancho Del Rey Parkway shall finished with colors and materials matching the existing homes on Elsa Drive. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 26th day of January, 1994 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Thomas A. Martin, Chairman Planning Commission ATTEST: Nancy Ripley, Secretary (b:\drc-9410.res) -L ~ --- ------ PROJECT LOCATION E\.. ~E'/ PAR ~~tlCtlO 0 INDI C.An:~ [;;.'(17rlhl~ f2.0IDe:.N~ ... U C . '\ . r EAST -H- STREET .L / CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~ APPLICANT: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: BA YONA SUBDIVISON ADDRESS: EI Rancho Del Rey Neighborhood 1561 SCALE: FILE NUMBER: NORTH 1" = 400' DRC - 94 - 10 CHULS VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 19.14.470 Site Plan and Architectural Approval Principles to be Observed 19.14.470 Site plan and an:bitectunI approval-!'rinciples to be obsenecL In canying out the purpose of this division, the zoning administrator shall consider in each specific case any or all of the following principles as may be appropriate: A. It is not a purpose of this division that control of design character should be so rigidly enforced that individual initiative is stifled in the layout of any particular building or site and lubstantialadditional expense incurred; rather, it is the intent of this division that any control exercised be the minimum necessary to achieve the over-all objective of this division. B. Good design character is based upon the suitability of building and lite design for tts purposes; upon the appropriate use of sound materials; and upon the principles of harmony and proportion in the over. all design. C. Good design character is not, in itself, more expensive than poor design, and is not dependent upon the particular style of design selected. D. The liting of any structure on the property, as compared to the siting of other ItructUreS in the immediate neighborhood, shall be considered. E. The size, location, design, color, number, lighting and materials of allligns and outdoor advertising structures shall be reviewed. No sign shall be approved in excess of the maximum limits set by any ordinance of the city. F. Landscaping in accordance with the landscaping manual of the city IhaIl be required on the lite and Ihall be in keeping with the character or design of the lite and existing trees shall be preserved ~ whenever possible. G. Ingress, egress and internal traffic circulation Ihall be so designed as to promote convenience and safety. H. All the facton specified in this section shall be related to the setting or established character of the neighborhood or surrounding area. I. Undergrounding of overhead utilities may be required by the zoning administrator subject to approval of the planning commission. (Ord. 1653 II, 1975; Ord. 135611 (pan), 1971; Ord 121211 (part), 1969; prior code 133.1313W(5)). (R 6/93) 1126 . EXISTING BAYONA NEIGHBORHOOD HOMES ---~.-. - --~- - -"..------< - - 1 n.___~__ i , I - ~ ---- --.- ---- - , ~ ~ ---- i ; -~ --~_._-,,---,"~- ..,....--'".----..--." -~"----_.~----'~-------- ----.----------- n..J .--..---- __._mo_ --~_..._-~_. .~----,---~~ PROPOSED KAUFMAN AND BROAD DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL DRC-94-10 -_..__.......-'""...-......"'-_.._.-_..__._....-...,..._-_..._..-_..._---..~...._...,......----.--....."'.......-...-- . . . -:I' . . . . .. ........... ............. d :<Jj~ ~j . ~ ~ . ., ~ . . . . . . j. . ---.- "'>- . C..w . z c:! <..0 . c::::w C , . . . . - - >-- Z OJ 0 - ~ r./J - > ,...-, ...J 5 =' =' W 0 0 i", 0 :.:..: 0 ~ z - -- a ~ ::r: u z Z <( r./J <r: II ~ ~ . . . . . . .~. . -. : ;~ '. : . . . . . .__.........,_........_..L..""'....._....,_........_....__........._........._.........., .........,_........_.-,,-.._.._..~................,_........-......................"'~"'_..-...._. M" 0 'I, " r. ,'" I ~, 'I I ,,'--' I ' g ,Pi.. 4---J I " ,., :~~~i . ~ ; . .. =:i' . . . . . j t-' I' I I :;'1:: ~'!;: I '" ~ I - 1L+-' ~ ~ . ' . ~ ~ "'>- -C:J ~c::: ~..J ~.U.J -0 ;: .r-,It f .u- ,~: ,r- ,i~ ,..1 ~ I ,,! ; ".1': i' ; I: I, ,I C'It: I ~D ~:;; (" I - " < ~ " ~ " - - 3 .L'.iZ l , .o',i. .r',t kr::IT '~~ ! ,._ .' II ,~-ftT :: \ I II ',> i . r-+--( , , - / ~ - -W' ; : i ~', I' , m- ~ ~ ~ ~ :r. < "" ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . t I , I ~ ~ I ~I :-1 I ~1 , , ~ .., ~ z ~ < ~ , < '^ '^ ;I~ ~ ~ N 2! Ui ~ t ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: " ~ " I "'I! ?,I I I - >.. .. j. " ;: ?: ~ - <ll~ ~ ,., ... -s 1 = .....~"...," ..""...,_........_...""C;.."_ ~.....,_.n....._"_"......"""'...,_.."'''_ ...w ~,_...u,. "....., "'''''..."_........,.''',.''...m''''''~A.'...~......,,..."......'''........,-........'"-'''~"''.....''''''''; -".."IJ'" ..,....""'.........-- 0;>- =UJ "0<: .z-' <(UJ .0<:0 __ ,-...A..( ",_'"- ,.. 'r' ~ . ;..- :> .' ., c. , .' c . .r " ,:1 ~ :::: ;.-- :> ,I I '~ '. '.r. . . ~. ~ ....., c " __..._..,_......._..,"_____...____"'__.___......L__.......____...___._......~..,__.._.__......",lI._..._..__ " " ~o . ., :::J . ~ '"! . ~ . ., ~ d '" = ~:, . ~. < -. , . ~ ><;.. 0'" Z" <(...J e:::~ E8 I 81 , ~ ~ ;:: ;> ..' ~ :z " '" '. r- I I I Q ~ ;> ~ ~ w ~ '" ;:: '\ <( ~ CJ :;j '" :.:J '" r; '" ~ , _._..-......._........._'"',...._...~.......-.........-,,_........__._.......""--_.._..--..._-_.........---...-..--.....-.-..-..--. ." ,., ~~ ~ ;:j -' ~ .. ~ " " Q>- c::; z- <-' ,.....w -~ m~~W~1:r " " ---- ----~I J8= ._1 1 ------- i , :;,W~ _~______n___n~ 'j--~ ::---~ ,l. a,~ ;;::,:;, q -", ...:. -.unu__n__ - ~ :~ .,,:~ _un~___u.~__ i!\II1" :: ,t:~ :~~~ -", --~ ----:.,.----_. >, ;7;- :lL - _______.~_un_ ...:. ~ ~/ ~'. --~~ ~L~ ~.i-,~ ...... V'. ~ ~ c:: , . ~ ~ ! z -< - ~ - ..."" 'I z -< - ---....- ~l ~-< -., 'I z <; 0. .;......1 g ,__...___.._"'L..._.......,_~ _.....__..__._...._...,__......._._.......__...~~_..__....,____.__.....'"~IOI_...........__, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . " .<11' 2. ::J " . , <]; . ~ ; . ., -:j' . . . . . j I" -A Ip:oJ:ti~ ~ -I' >.tdJ ~= "'>- ~L.tJ '2'0< <..J 0<"-' o .9-,<.; .1)1-,"- o ,'" .~-,l\S .Ol,n ,,0-,"-: . . . . . . M , - I -tt " , -LI I" I ~I <' I I ~ ~l I <: j< 3 I 'I i~1 ~i r '. ~i ill . , . , ~~.;b~ l , .~'.~ 1 '" ":' - " ., - ~ I. .---i-.__ -,:: - -" ~~ r ;; 10", I I..!::::::-=.. " './) " " 1 I I ~~ - L- e' ~ " ;:j !O ~ - .t ~. - ~ . "'" j . z~ < ~ .0: . :r;;:r. :r; :q ~ ~ :X)::o :::: '^ Z' 91 ~ g ~ ~i :: ~ ~ ~L ~ ~ - - ~ ~ - ~ - ~ ;;: ,~...'.. -..-.,,_...~..__.. ".-, .........- -~ " .~~ .~ . '.::! . .. ::; j ~ ~>: v:::: z- < -, ~~ ;''-! -- "," ,- '-,,, .........",.u..,'_N._~........_..., ..."""_........_...~_"'_"'_.....n...~.....__,......__..._.._.___..... ..~....,..____ . ..... ~!_- "T .~ N"'; :ii ~ :;; ,I \IJ/ ,- - - - ."- ':1. _.. ..}:. ..;,'" ~~ If"_..:..o- , -, 1M.' '<- .~ . ~ r, , ", <<: :: z :<; ~ " :<:: ;?, " GJ "",~, '('J(, -,~1t '"""" I', I )j '" ,,' H , '1( , ,,- / -, "- " ,: .:~ .1 v z ~ v C ~ "! w:i '\ __..___..._....,..__....,_... ..._.__"'__..............L.......,_........_.__..__.....~.........~...,__..._.__.... ..~.._.._._-- " ,., ~" .. ~ ~ <J! ;:j .. ~ " ~ c- ;::[;j Z::t <..0 ::<W Q - = ~ m EB I I I z g '- ~ ~ - ::< <( w ::< z C 1: '< ;> '" iiJ w c i/j '- o.. ~ ~~ ~ ~, . ~ < ~. , . ~ ;;:: :>, ~ s z '" ::< --..----_...~---_...-.--...__._...........-----.--..-_........_----_.--......-..---- ., <n. ~ ::5 ., "!! ;:j .. ~ j = 9;>- -UJ u" z <....l ~;Ij -c ~ ~ ~~'; . . ~ <~ .~ , . u z ., - - - z ., - - '" z ., - " '" ,........_"...".....,,_...~...-..."'" """'" "",.....,_....._-...,,_.....~...... ,-,._~....~.~,~._, ~.._....., _...~...-_.-..-...,-,....._-~..,......".".,.......~...-..."."....-........., "'",.,,"".~,-._..."'''''I ,-;j <11: .:2 .,. "' "' ~ - -, -. -., " >- ~ c.; z '" < '" '" ~ { ,)1-:, ~~,j ~ ~ -: . :r.:r. ~I ;Ii ~ ;\ ~i ~ ~ ] -- -+- ~, " "::1 " /. 21 ~ ~ ~I / 'r. Z I . :- ~ I .-.1: ,I\.~; r i~ r:::z"] ~ rr;:r:=clt ---4-L . - , ~ ,~,. r-'~ :~ f-------i - ~ - ~': 2". -'.:'.~/~.'i,,: !...-' :.: ',' '. /.. ., I-"\.'~j;,.'. " , 0, 2, ~~ { , - Uc ,..J ;J / / -z ~;:: , " ;: " ...i&j )10 128 ~~ .. LH-~; ;lor - + 1= ,I ==:j:, ~ :0: - " ~~..{ IJI-i ~ .'... '~ ~ ~ :0: _.--1-~ -- - I I Jl-' I' " I / ld .1 c' - ~ g --... - ~ ~ :;: ......._.. ..~...,_......_""........., ._"'.,_......~_..,,__........._.....-~....~..,.."" ,......,_........_. _"""'...__~..~....__.....,_......._...._.._.... -."'...,w_........_. ", <n. 5 ., "Ii ;:j .. ~ j (/ .../ . , I! '.. I . A' , ( ~I J I .~ . I _ ~: ;; ~ "J. ,= . '/'r' ;:>: z:;: < ::::;;:: 4- ::0 <:; : / "> / >: ~ /' )" , -If ,." ,; , ~\~/ / '~ , ,7.c '\., ":t I , - ~."." ,. " . ,:. ./...J,- I ~ J ,..r' '7 __.._.....,__...__~..__.....,_......._"__..__._._......,_...__..._.__...__.................,__.._.__.....,.u...,.._...__ . . .. ...................... . . . ':I' >~U~I .~~. ,'J . . . . . ~ 2;: -Ul ~'" <..J ",Ul o , v I , I ' r----;- I i i , I ;;: ~ '" ~ '" ~ '" ;;: :> ~ Ul ::: :r. t:: !;;: '" . . . . . . ~ , , , , , L j ~ .~ . - (""'~ ~ . -$'- ~ ....., .:;: . . . . . 'v I " ~ d r:il .,..-,. ~ ;;: :> ~ ,d " ~~ I I I ~ ~~t.::.::rl ." 15 :r. >, q = """"...,,,.___..._,,,,~__,,.,,.,__... .....~_.......-.__._"........t-._........_.__..__""....____..._.__......",,,.._.._...__ " ,., <11. 3 ~ <J! ;:j .. ~ d ~ ;r "",,,:'..:.1 ::...,.,..". z- :5a -c:o ~~i -' , ~ ~ u z <; - ~ z <; - - .., -< z <; '- ... 0 '" CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 01/17/94 11:21 ....- 'fi'619 ^'7 7680 ~TD SA1\ DIEGO Ial001 p . ., ,",:ON ~iC .~~. .. f - " \'~a.~I'\Ot\\\ . ____ 1 1 1'1'1., _' ,1>,,0 (. 0"'0.-1- r' ' P.--.' '. ~--- ......... I.' . January 17 , 1994 ,,~,\;. j ".~ " .c~~cqS P".,.,.,t " ,," - ..:~:~S5'('Ig ..._ . 'I~' J. be1.,)~~ ~ ~. .. (":,~ ,..(I']S. .rrl n' ..~..U,.,.;\'I::I (io91::o....\. <.- RECE;VE:u J,~N 1 '1 1994 Chair Person and Member of the Planning Commission CITY OF CHULA VISTA 276 Fourth Ave Chula vista, ca. 91910 PLANN,NG Dear Sir or Madam; I am writing this letter to convey my concern regarding the Kaufman & Broad development proposal and to request your support to protect the quality of our community and the value of our homBs. Before I purchased my property at The Rancho del Rey development, I considered several other areas including Eastlake and Rancho Bernardo. I chose The Rancho Del Rey, Sayona neighbOrhood because I knew the quality of McMillin homes and the fact that Bayona was designed by a well known architectural firm and not by in house designer as many developers do. I was told that the neighborhood consisted of 91 lots and 4 different models all illustrated in the plat plan approved by the City of Chula Vista on October 18, 1990, see enclosed document. My decision to purchase my home in Sayona, was based on the strong residential flavor, the neighborhood integrity. the quality of materials, the character and pleasant harmony of colors and the well design landscape, which together produce an elegant and pleasant atmosphere that my family and I enjoyed. I am very positive that this development is unique and well thought out. This excellent architectural design also contributes to the enhancement of the City. To my surprise, on December 8, 1993, only 4 months after I moved to this development, I received an invitation to preview a new housing product for the remaining portion of the neighborhood and to meet the new developer Kaufman & Broad. This proposed homes projected not only a different architecture, but incompatible color scheme, the interior and exterior finishes, the amenities and architectural design qualities are inferior to the quality found in our homes. At this time we see our neighborhood threatened to be substantially changed by the introduction of this new development. 01/17/94 11:21 . ~. '5'619 277 7680 ~TD SA?> DIEGO I4i 002 Page 2 Chair Person Members of the Planning Commission Because the developer is stripping his product of quality amenities and finishes that are standard in our homes. this new product is expected to be considerably less expensive than the existing homes which will have a detrimental effect in value of our homes. For this reason we asking for your support to save our neighborhood and the value our homes. each of the existing residents may lose all our equity, if this project is approved. As homeowners our main concern is not who is going to finish the development of the remaining lots, but that the development adhere to the already established neighborhood character and integrity. Therefore. we urge you to deny the project and direct the developer to revise his plans to reflect the established architectural character, color scheme and landscaping of the eayona neighborhood, which we call home. Thank you for your consideration and assistance to this matter. If you wish to contact me, may do 50 at 713 Esla Drive, Chula Vista, CA 91910. Telephone No. (619) 482-5554 ~ery truly YOu~S ~ / I '~Yr(l~ .e;11~/1:,.jt7 amlro G. Hem z Bayona homeowner cc: Mayor Tim Nader Council Leonard Moore Jerry Rindone Shirley Horton Robert Fox t _A YONA HOMEOWNERS ALLlANC... 954 NORELLA STREET CHULA VISTA. CA 91910 Dee 1 1, 1993 Dear Mayor Tim Nader; Cc: Mayor Tim Nader Cc: Councilman Leonard Moore Cc: Councilman Jerry Rindone Cc: Councilwoman Shirley Horton Cc: Councilman Robert Fox Cc: Design Review Coordinator J. Luis Hernandez A N As homeowners of the Bayona development in Rancho Del Rey. we have been coalesced into action by the imminent plans by Kaufman & Broad to develop homes in our immediate area that do not adhere to the original master plan for the area. nn ===1~ -<-< ("')0 ,....." mC":) :::o~ ~E t.r>r- C?,~: . . ~.:.:.:, n-.;r-- ~ :::0 fTI (") fTI < ITI C ~ - .. a - The master plan called for the eventual completion of Bayona by the McMillan Development. Inc. as a architecturally harmonious tract of homes that suggested Mediterranean influences. The newly proposed homes to be built by Kaufman & Broad in no way retain this architectural harmony: They are of an entirely different conceptual origin. differing in colorations, geometry. materials. etc. .- The proposed homes. if they are completed as proposed would have severely negati~e affects on the aesthetics as well as the uniqueness of the Bayana community. -we are taking this opportunity to formally ask that a public hearin!! be granted to us. the homeowner 0 We the homeowners of Bayona have also signed the a ac cd petition form to demonstrate our conviction that this is indeed a matter of great importance to us. We look forward to hearing from you as to when a hearing can be arranged. Cordially, The Bayona Home"l\\ rs Alliance f' . ( ~ c:.:c' c:;&; 7-f5~ ('I ) w~rrn:1 ~ f!7 ~- 0~<1~~J~ ~. f<': ~~~ _. .' .. ~ ~ [. ~... i'.' 1', "r'[A-I'\!'!'"' {*',. ..... .' ..: ~'~'I,;.....~I _~Ii~;;II t... .~ _ w ~_.,.... -...r .... /.n- ItI)9~ .' ( ~A YONA HOMEOWNERS ALLlANCt: 954 NORELLA STREET CHULA VISTA. CA 91910 25i 26- 7:1. 28- 29'- 30. . 31.. 32- 33. 1 34. DRESS C{.56, {lJuytlLLA DRESS C!6r AJi>l1.6z,l.J} DRESS 17D IJDt2.n..LA JT. DRESS "\14 t='Ot.~\..L.' ">1' ADDRESS 971 ft~U4 jf . DRESS 'ts'1 r,.)~Ll,^ M. DRESS C>fScf /v""..(J/(a Sf . DRESS q~ f IJ I'Rdl f! :5-1-. ADDRESS q/.,f V.~I'("!l4 .5-1 . ADDRESS 1GS;" ,JO(.z~ .sT DRESS 'ltJ' ,Je1r!'Rlult 57- DRESS 4'tjt'J NOREL.LA. :::., ADDRESS 9~f) ,A.!N.dlh 57 DRESS -<rl'd7WAd4./ P DRESS 7c/; t&~b"C- DRE~I EJLdf ~I/t DRE _ ~+ e LO..Jt (,rV DRESs7u r..<;LA ~'('\I(- ~:: 7~ :di~ ~:. . DRESS 7/7 ~Ci- ~r- DRESS 7 j:j .,- I r, -JJ t. DRESS '1/3 5..:'; (./Jv\ r. DRESS 7 OX- ~ .\.-~ 1;>'2... DRESS 7/;;' 6.yt., j),.. DRESS 7/& C~~ 4.... DRESS l' ~ ~I. ~ j)I\.lJi DRESS 7~ S- ;;$/,1 ')0"''< e~f)' ~Id ADDRESS 12.5 fslA Or C I.lli..k li.:W\, DRESS TJA fi./!. 4. ...th, e.. .c/, .:~/ 1("6 DREss7,~q E~'I.-A bp. OV QIC(1.!l.. DRESS 7-15 F.Jlfl 0/1., <...\1 S I 'i to DRESS 145 Uta. 0..uA' '.:1 Q'9/0 DREss.,511; N (\( e , , t! S +- ( ,", ,iONA HOMEOWNERS ALLIANCE"'" 954 NORELLA STREET CHULA VISTA. CA 91910 ADDRESS ?b9 rv()(2CU-fj -ri DRESS ql"," fJo~U-h> .sol DRESS 99 ,J[)/U.rc....A'> ~. DRESS {, 0 Ntp d 1r. C-r- DRESS ';'3-5 ~5L./T C~: ~& DRESS 733 f'dcc V40, . 1/ DRESS 75etf:.'~'Ti DRESS '1'1'1 ?! -ph .sf. ADDRESS 9.5>-/ JU.rf'f,c.; ST-. ADDRESS >.J Ail.!t:.GLL./f ~ T: DRESS (? I C/vl. 7_ J DRESS <fi.( fY~ 0 (11' .' 'lJ'k. DRESS ift~f~()Q~l.-L,A ~~~LLJ'~M DRESS 7 J/-!; OL /lIt.- .. DREss-5')'t N~{tGut .>-rflcc'7 DRESS '~O ~ ~ ~~- DRESS~ o'li' \)~.,;.;;- , ADDRESS 7 b:2. E-SL.A ,)1:. DRESS t" ~k ~' . DRESS . .~ t ~:: )-.--. DRESS 7' v'. DRESS 1S"4 M~ {-f ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS . ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS 87. 88. 89. . 90. 91. ~ 9 93. 94. 95. 96. W. 98. 99. 100. 10l. 102. 103. 104. .~ ....."....,~.., .1 i 950 Norella Street Chula Vista, CA 91910 December 12, 1993 DEC 1 3 1993 City of Chula Vista Planning Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Mr. Hernandez: The proposed development for Rancho Del Rey is not compatible with the appearance of the existing Bayona homes. This will be especially apparent on Norella Street where the two dissimilar projects will coexist on the same street. Also, a single oddball house has been proposed for the north end of Esla street. This house will literally stand out like a sore thumb if built as proposed. As a Bayona homeowner, I welcome the completion of the Bayona project. However, the proposal should be denied until the following problems can be addressed: . The proposed "stone and brick masonry trim" and "elevated covered front porches" are totally out of character for the neighborhood. All of Rancho Del Ray is done in a Spanish motif. . The proposed flat concrete roof tiles should be replaced with curved tiles in the same color, size, and shape as all the other homes in the Bayona project. . The new houses should be painted in color schemes agreeable with the existing homes on the same street. . The new construction should have landscaping that fits in with the landscaping of the rest of the street. Those of us who bought into the Bayona development agreed to extensive and detailed CC&Rs because we enjoyed the harmonious look of a master planned community. We are concerned that this project may severely reduce the property value of our investments. Please study the project's compatibility with and impact upon existing homes before approving it. Thank you. 7e/,eIY, !l '" ~-~ M:rvin'\imkin --- Case No: DRC-94-l0 \--1) a1 E Q;:0 C)~ VJ~ ~ t:: ...... J- 4 L..L ~ > - >-.. ~ -$ cV~ ">--.. ---+-.c.. :;\ -u --t- ~ ~ 'lJ E ~ ~ i. -..jl ~ ~ '? '0 - r- ....., '<) -..s;: 0\ - ~ ~"-'tS oJ ~ 4' C '-........,;/ c ~3 VI;:: ~ 0' ~ ~ 4- Q ~ !- ~ ~ <lJ VJ f-; V\ ~ () ( " - ~ - E5LA ~ f.- Lt. ,~ c ~ ~ ~~ V L. ~11 <::!-'(;) <V\j '=- --.:L '-" ~ .<;.) -~ '- u + 3 -..f f1 4.J \r1 f6{,~ t,.! ~ >~++ ~ .f ,,~ lt1 Q'J- ,( -c~v-!! c) L..J::. oJ ~ '- + '- -c. 0) '- Q f- -..;:;j ~ <: :;- ~ t ~ (j ~ ~:~ -~ -C "-t; '- ~ - ~ '- Q "- Z ~ ~ -I-:....a.:;:. )( .f Q) Q.J I~ <J U\ ~ -C ~ w t- ". t.. F'.l I'EC 16 '0,3 Or: 210,1'11'1 F'Ole" )UTH BAy' . .,,'i 'L'\~'ON ...._n I w~.not"i.d. lima is \~ Otho,,: December 13, 1993 Mayor Tim Nader 276 Fourth Ave. chula vista, CA 91910 P:aa~~J ch~ck your mr,.,gSag9~ bef;')!'9 C:'3.!;:~1~ V.!ord ~.)roce5SIJ1g (E:;o.ard.i"~ 'fI:;..O',,:,Llg nX2G. . . Dear Mayor Nader, We are writing to you in regards to the notice we received on the site plan and architecture proposed construction of 51 single family dwellings (Case No, DRC-94-10) on the remaining lots of the subdivision presently known as the Neighborhood 1561 (Bayona) in the Rancho Del Rey Planned Community. Before you consider this plan, please hear out our concerns as one of the Eayona Homeowners. Last Wednesday, December 8, we (the Bayona Homeol,ner's) were invited to preview the proposed plan in the Bayona neighborhood by Kaufman and Broad and the McMillin group at Rancho Del Rey. To our amazement, the plans and arohitectural designs of the proposed dwellings are completely differently, they don't have the same style, quality and features as the houses that are already built. The proposed dwellings are muoh smaller than the previously approved plans in the Bayona neighborhood. Kaufman and Broad will start building these completely different houses from where the Bayona development had stopped which is half of Norella Street (see exhibit 1). As you can see fro~ exhibit 2 (designs of present homes in the Bayona neighborhood), the plans of Kaufman and Broad does not blend with our present neighborhood. As a military family who's been stationed overseas for over 8 years, we were excited to finally settle down in a quite community like Rancho Del Rey. When we bought our house which was in November 1992, we were never told by Rancho Del Rey's sales representative, Jerrie Brizzie, that there might be problems with the Bayona development. What we were told and led to believe was that most of the houses were already sold (all the lots in Norella St.) except for 3 or 4 houses. When we finally arrived from overseas and saw our house for the first time, we were surprised that only half of Norella Street was developed. That was when we found out that Rancho Del Rey was having financial problems due to their partner, HomeFed. We understood the situation and we didnrt mind that MCMillin stopped the development in our neighborhood for the mean time. We were never informed that the McMillin group might not continue with the approved Bayona plans. DEC 15 ',-'---' :>.:' 07: 271'11"1 "'0 I C'- \.. JTH B,W P.2 t Now that McMillin has bought HomFed's share, they are bringing in Kaufman and Broad to continue the project in our neighborhood with completely different plans from what we were presented initially when we were buying our houses. NOW that d~velopment is starting again, our main concern is the difference in style, quality and features of the proposed dwellings from the present Spanish style houses in our neighborhood. The proposed developmen~ will start in the midale of Norell a St. The proposea houses also have a price range of below $200,000. As you can see with exhibit 3 (price range of present homeS in ~he Bayona neighborhood) the average value of houses is about $230,000 because of the unique style and quality of our homes. Picture a street (Norella st) in which half is Bayona quality and half of it is completely different. What do you think will happen if your house is valued at $230,000 and then another house down the road is only valued at $180,0007 If the proposed plan of Kaufman and Broad is approved, the value of all the houses in the Bayona neighborhood will go down. We are hoping that McMillin will reconsider and will go ahead with the previously approved plan in the Bayona neighborhood. Please, we urge you to consider our concerns and the rest of the Bayona neighborhood. We voiced out our concerns tc the McMillin representative, the senior Vice-President in Charge of Marketing, and to the Kaufman and Broad representative during our meeting last December 8. We were all told that the McMillin group will get back with us in regards to our concerns, but up to now we haven't heard anything from them. We are all upset and disgruntled about the change in plans. We were misinformed and misled by the Sales Department of Rancho Del Rey and they are playing around with our biggest asset - our homes! So you are our last resort, please hear our concerns and help us. Before you approve the proposed plan of Kaufman and Broad, have an open forum with the Bayona homeowners or just visit the site and you'll see in person what the proposed change in the plan will do to our neighborhood. Sincerely, -(rV"L Q: ~. fW~ ~n) Mr. and Mrs. Florante Sabino 958 Norella st. chula vista, CA 91910 ~ . December 13,91910 Mr. J. Luis Hernandez Design Review Coordinator/Associate planner CITY OF CHULA VISTA Planning Department 276 Fourth Ave Chula vista, ca. 91910 Dear Mr. Hernandez; Last Wednesday, December 8, we were invited to preview the proposed architectural design for the new dwellings to be built in our neighborhood by Kaufman and broad of San Diego Incoo At this time we would like to expressed three reasons why this proposed 51 single family dwellings should not be approved by the City.. 1. We strongly believed that the existing design is unique and contribute to the enhancement of the City.. Our houses features excellent architectural design qualities. We strongly suggest that the amenities our houses have be consider before approving this new development proposal. Our houses as we understand were design by an architectural firm who took the time to analyzed, researched and studied the City's residential neighborhoods. 2. As homeowners our main concern lies on the inferior quality of design and inferior quality on the product. means cheaper houses, which translate to a depreciation of our properties value. 3. As you are aware, on October 18, 1990, your department approved the Sayona development, and for reasons unknown to us this proposed and approved development has not been completed. We want you to exercise your design review power to maintain the quality of our neighborhood. l " Page 2 Mr. Hernandez Our understanding is that Kaufman and Broad will finish the development, but we do not see the same product. At this time we urge you not to apDroved Kaufman and Broad proposed project. ~ery truly y~urs' .P r I!'('MIVV .b'r(j~M(J7 a 0 Hernan Bayona Homeowner cc: Mayor Tim Nader Council Leonard Moore Jerry Rindone Shirley Horton Robert Fox C-15- ';::' ~, -.-".., L...1-' .1. ::;::, . ..:.:- __I r- . r,r'\ I ;) 10\:;'J \.. -H~;l " ~ . , , .1 TfO E:sla Drive Chula vista, CA. I .--December 15, 1993 91910 ~ ,-- r,::::--- . I l \..__',"~""O'_ Mayor Tim Nader 276 4th Avenue Chu1a Vista, CA. 91910 Dear Mr. Nader: As a Bayona homeowner, my husband and I have concerns regarding the proposed new homes to be built in our neighborhood. Aside from ol\r concerns regarding the value of our home investment, we request that you consider these issues: the proposed house3 have brick and stone masonry, raised enclosed front porches, flat til~ roofa (vs. barrel tiles) and other features which do not blend with the SpaniSh style, Bayona homes; the color schemes and landscaping will not match our existing homes: and the fact that we, the homeowners of Bayonal invested our hard-earned money believing the neighborhood would develop with the same high quality Bayona homes. At the time we were considering buying our home, we were ahown future blueprints and a video of the Bayona home plans which left me with the impression of a neighborhood one could be proud to be a part of because of the dedication to enhancing the quality of homes. The current pro- posed homes in our opinion, do not have the features which match our Bayona home. I thank you for your consideration regarding this matter. Sincerely, ~dJc?mJ~ Catherine Dominguez / \. \. To: City of Chula Vista Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission DfC] December-15,1993 5 199.~ I am a home owner at 949 Norella Street in the Bayona community. When my wife and I purchased the home in June of this year, we were assured by a representative of the McMillan Company that they were going to continue to build more McMillan houses (Bayona Phase II) on the empty lots of our street. However, on December 7, 1993, McMillan informed us that the lots were sold to a different company, Kaufman and Broad. Kaufman and Broad are intending to build a different style of homes in our community which will be called "California Castille," a completely different title from "Bayona." Furthermore, the proposed "California Castille" is going to split our community in half, on the same street! This seems so awkward and incredible to us. The new proposed homes will also be about 30 to 60 thousand dollars less expensive than the homes in the Bayona community. Our homes are of a contemporary Mediterranean style where the proposed homes tend to look more traditional with dark brick and stone masonary, raised enclosed front porches, flat tile roofs, and they are smaller in square footage. The difference would be very obvious! The City of Chula Vista must stop the new proposal and offer a similar type of construction to the existing houses. We, the people of Bayona, are angry and frustrated over this matter. We are going to lose on the value of our homes. We are in favor of new construction but not if the new houses are not similar to the '" , existing Bayona community. As our city officials, we urge and trust that you will help us in this matter. / SincerelY,}~, ./ / l/tf?i~9r1?P77 N~.,..('~ ~~--/U~,~A/ Homayoun Nabizadeh Oralia Nabizadeh 949 Norella St. C . V ., Ca. 91 91 0 t Appendix C CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS 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: I. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Kaufman and Broad of San Diego, Inc., a California corporation List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. RAncho Del Rey Investors, L.P., a California limited partnership 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than IDS of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. Kaufman and Broad of San Diego, Inc. is a subsidiary corporation of Kaufman and Broad Home Corporation, a publicly traded corporation. 3. If any person identified pursuant to (11 above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. not applicable 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Conmissions, Conmittees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No xx If yes, please indicate person(s) - - Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, socIa I club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit." (~: Attach additional pages as necessary.~ I ~ Slgnat~f app'flca ate Kaufman and Broad of San Diego, Gre~g Linhoff Pr In or type name ot app 11cant Inc. WPC 070lP A-IIO