HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts. /2005/05/25
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Chula Vista, California
6:00 p.m.
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Public Services Building
Council Chambers
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA
CALL TO ORDER: Cortes_ Felber_ O'Neill_ Hom _ Madrid_ Hall_ Tripp_
ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE and MOMENT OF SILENCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission
on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on
today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes.
1. PUBLIC HEARING:
PCC-05-032; Conditional Use Permit, a request to
allow an observation deck addition to a single
family residence to exceed the 28 foot height limit of
the Single Family Residential Zone (R-1). Applicant:
Pamela Bensoussan.
Project Manager: Lynette Tessitore-Lopez, Associate
Planner
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests individuals
who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or
service, request such accommodations at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings, and five days for
scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691-5101
or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at 585-5647. California Relay Service is also available
for the hearing impaired.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: L
Meeting Date: 05-25-2005
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit PCC-05-032, a request to allow an
observation deck addition to a single family residence to exceed the 28 foot
height limit of the Single Family Residential Zone (R-l).
Applicant: Pamela Bensoussan.
The applicant requests a conditional use permit to exceed the height limit of the R -I zone in order to
retain an existing observation deck with guard rails that extend I foot 9 inches above the 33 foot 7 Yz
inch high ridge line of the existing historic structure.
Per Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.24.060, an increase in building height, in the R-l zone,
may be allowed subject to approval of a conditional use permit. Further, Chula Vista Municipal Code
Section 19.14.050 (a) provides that the Zoning Administrator may, at hislher option, refer any of the
matters on which she/he is authorized to rule and/or issue a permit to the Planning Commission for
reVIew.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the project qualifies for a Class 31 categorical
exemption pursuant to Section 15331 (Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation)of the State CEQA
Guidelines. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary.
RECOMMENDATION:
That based upon the findings of fact, that the Planning Commission approve this request to deviate
from the height limit of the R-l, Single-Family Residential Zone with findings and conditions listed
in draft resolution. (Attachment 7)
DISCUSSION:
I. Site Characteristics
The subject parcel is located between I Street and J Street on Second Avenue. The parcel is
approximately 11,232 square feet and is the site of the historic Greg Rogers house. This parcel is set
behind a 9,170 square foot parcel, the site of the historic Nadine Davies house, and is only partially
visible from the public right of way. (Attachment I)
2.
General Plan, Zoning and Land Use
General Plan
Residential, Low-Medium
Residential, Low- Medium
Residential, Low-Medium
Residential, Low-Medium
Residential, Low-Medium
Zoning
R-l
R-l
R-l
R-1
R-l
Current Land Use
Single-family residential
Single-family residential
Single- family residential
Single-family residential
Single-family Residential
Site:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Page 2, Item: _
Meeting Date: 05-25-2005
3. Proposal
The request for a Conditional Use Permit is to allow for an existing observation deck with guardrails
that exceed the ridgeline of the existing historic structure by I foot 9 inches. The deck and
associated guardrails were constructed without the benefit of permit sometime after the house was
moved onto the site in 1985 and prior to the house being purchased by Ms. Bensoussan. The
applicant asks that she be allowed to retain the observation deck as she believes that once the rest of
the house is painted it will be more clear that the deck is consistent with Craftsman architecture and
is an important and long used feature of her home. (Attachment 2) The applicant has also provided
some photo documentation of examples of the use of similar decks on other craftsman homes.
(Attachment 3) Further, the applicant, in an effort to enhance privacy for the surrounding neighbors,
has agreed to screen the deck with plants and other appropriate landscaping and in compliance with
the building code will structurally upgrade the feature to meet today's permit standards.
Subsequent to the Zoning Administrator public notice of consideration of the administrative action
on this application, staff received several letters for and against the approval of this conditional use
permit. Therefore, though the Zoning Administrator is authorized to rule on matters such as this,
the Zoning Administrator chose to refer the matter to the Planning Commission for review.
ANALYSIS:
The proposed conditional use permit request came into the Planning Department as a result of a
Code Enforcement case. On March 2,2004, Code Enforcement received a complaint of building
without a permit at this location. Since such time, Code Enforcement and Planning have worked
with the applicant to determine what permits and processes would be necessary for her to remedy the
situation, which was created by a previous owner. The applicant agreed to obtain all necessary
permits and has since applied for the necessary building permits, as well as a conditional use permit,
which is required because the guardrails ofthe observation deck exceed the height limit of the R-l
zone. The Building Division has approved the building plans for this application and is prepared to
issue a building permit upon approval of the conditional use permit to allow for the observation
deck.
The Greg Rogers house has two decks. Once of the decks is not at issue as it is located below the
height limit of the R-l zone. The floor of the deck that is at issue is set below the 33 foot 7 Yz inch
ridge line ofthe existing legal non-conforming structure, however the guardrails exceed the ridge line
ofthe structure by 1 foot 9 inches. Using the Secretary ofthe Interior Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties, Staff evaluated the affect ofthe observation deck and associated guardrails on
the historic structure. Based upon the Standards, Staff determined that neither the deck nor
guardrails affect the historic significance of this home (Attachment 4)
Although the deck does not change or intensify the existing historic structure, it is highly visible
from the rear and side public view. Therefore, its existence is well known throughout the
neighborhood. There is support both for and against this proposal. The issues brought up on this
application are compelling for both sides ofthe matter. (Attachment 5) Several ofthose against the
approval of the CUP feel that the deck is not consistent with the architecture of the home and
Page 3 I Item:
Meeting Date: 05-25-2005
detracts from its historic integrity. In addition, several cited privacy impingement concerns. Many
ofthose in support ofthe CUP, state that the deck is consistent with Craftsman architecture and that
the deck is not aesthetically offensive to those who are most affected by it. Taking all comments on
this application into consideration, the Zoning Administrator felt that any decision made' at the
administrative level would more than likely be appealed. Therefore, it was decided that, to save
processing time, that the application be referred directly to the Planning Commission for
consideration.
CONCLUSION:
It is staffs recommendation that Planning Commission approve the request for a conditional use
permit to exceed the height limit of the R-l zone based upon the finding of facts of the attached
Resolution PCC-05-032. In the event that the Planning Commission finds that the request should not
be approved, a draft resolution for denial has also been provided for consideration. (Attachment 8)
Attachments
I. Locator Map
2. CUP Application and Disclosures
3. Issues Matrix and Public Comments/Letters
4. Historic Significance Memorandum
5. Photographic Examples
6. Photos ofthe Subject Property
7. Resolution of Approval
8. Resolution of Denial
9. Elevations
J :\Planning\Case Files\-05 (FY 04-05)\PCC\ZA \PCC-05-032\NOD\PCC-05-032 Staff Report.doc
. 4Tr/l-u-fvt1 ~vLfI L
/
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT P I B PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT: ame a ensoussan
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PROJECT 616 S d A
ADDRESS: econ venue Request: Proposal for an increase in height for the
observation deck within the R-1 zone.
SCALE: FILE NUMBER:
NORTH No Scale PCC-05-032
J:\planning\carlos\locators\pcc05032.cdr 05.12.05
e
e
A1IAL I/fil ~ JAr ::L
Department
Planning Division
~\~~ ..
-.-
....0;:"__ --...0;:"
"'-- - ........
......."'-- -
B u
I din g
CllY OF
CHULA VISTA
. DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING · TYPE A
Part 1
T
~ Conditional Use Permit \clO'\..U'\'
o Design Review
~ Variance
o Special Use Permit (redevelopment area only)
o Misc.
A lication Information
Applicant Name
Applicant Address
Contact Name
'P__e/~~C$aH
a>/~ _ :::t ~ ckb, Usrd, ~.
$d H? Phone tb /9 ~ -7 7 i; 'Z-
9/9/t?
Primary contact is:
o Architect/Agent
Project Name:
General Description of Proposed Project:
Has this project received pre-application review comments?
Subject Property Information (all types)
Location/Street Address: t? /6 ~h4d ~ AAALI';
Assessor's Parcel #: S-7?!-//J1J-Z6 -~c?Total Acreage: . ZIb Redevelopment Area (if applicable): AI /~
General Plan Designation: ~'L/v1 t Zone Designation: J.Z /
Planned Community (if applicable): N / IJ .
ICurrent Land Use: s/nc1/~~;t ~(./~ I.A!/'d~ Within Montgomery SpecifiR~t;ne,JelDes ~-
~ CITY OF CHULA VISTA
es)
t
~-!
0:3
Type of use proposed:
Landscape Coverage (% of lot):
o Commercial
I llNNING ANU t.\UIl-Uli
o Industrial 0 &f'mr':" BUILDING DIV\SlnN
Building Coverage (% of lot):
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista
California
91910
(619) [,91-5101
e
e
~\ft..
---
.~-- -.
CIlY OF
CHULA VISfA
APPLICATION . DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING · TYPE A
Part 2
Residential Project Summary
Type of dwelling unit(s): S/~ ~;~ n?4/~ Number of lots: /
Dwelling units:
PROPOSED EXISTING
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3+ Bedroom
TOTAL
1-13.812-
Density (DU/acre):
Maximum building height:
Minimum lot size:
Average lot size:
Parking Spaces: / /
Required by code: Z- Provided: 7'
Type of parking (i.e. size; whether covered. etc.): ~ 0CA.-r ~
Open space description (acres each of private, common, and landscaping):
Anticipated number of employees:
Number and ages of students/children (if app
Parking Spaces:
Required by code: Provided:
Type of parking (i.e. size; whether covered, etc.):
Pro'ect Summar
Existing:
Building Height:
Maximum number of employees at anyone time:
Seating capacity:
Authorization
Print applicant name: ';:J,~ ,~~5~
Applicant Signature:
Date:
//~/pr;-
Print owner name*:JrtMf 10-
//
Owner Signature.: r_ j l' )/'
Sef\ <; () l,(,55&V\
\~.
- -~, ,'-: ",'1.1//Y,;(''...-- Date:
*Note: Proof of ownership may be required. Letter of consent may be provided in lieu of signature.
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista
California
91910
(619) 691-5101
e
e
~~f?- ..
--=.~
r....::::-__- .....a;'
...... ........
""" ---.
p I ann
n g
&
Building
Planning Division I
Department
Development Processing
cm OF
CHUIA VISTA
APPLICATION APPENDIX A
Project Description & Justification
Applicant Name:
&Z l&!wS H/tfl/r7L- f/vu~
. el~_Ge/J)6U5)a()
Project Name:
Please fully describe the proposed project, any and all construction that may be accomplished as a result of approval of
this project, and the project's benefits to yourself, the property, the neighborhood, and the City of Chula Vista. Include any
details necessary to adequately explain the scope and/or operation of the proposed project. You may include any
background information and supporting statements regarding the reasons for, or appropriateness of, the application. Use
an addendum sheet if necessary.
For all Conditional Use Permits or Variances, please address the required "findings" as listed in the Application Procedural
Guide.
l{ln~:~:~Y- C-IAJ "'fbR- e~c-e~;nJ J.eIJht-
__ ~ 11\ rei ('{vel f ~ ':'ll InJ Jr]
o b s e r v Pl V'--t tPY1 d e- e- Ie.., w j" 1 C/h I S c-L-fJ ~ ;.- cJ ~
f ' .
/'/.... .fJ v I . /' .. ..J /
_ _ ~ 1> ' tt I?{}Ve" fJ'1 t( be. ' jrO($T ~ I r vI-\. '
I
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista \ California
lJ1'110
(b1-lJ) 6'11-5101
e
e
~~f~'
~.-
~1i:"" ---
~- ........
---
p I ann
n g
& Building
Planning Division
Department
Development Processing
env OF
CHUlA VISTA
APPLICATION APPENDIX B
Disclosure Statement
Pursuant to Council Policy 101-01, prior to any action upon matters that will require discretionary action by the Council,
Planning Commission and all other official bodies of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain ownership or financial
interests, payments, or campaign contributions for a City of Chula Vista election must be filed. The following information
must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property that is the subject of the application or the
contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
&fY/e ( &t ~ 50 LA S'S t:{ {\ I '()t>>ft e Ie...
2. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals with
a $2000 investment in the business (corporation/partnership) entity.
11 / l!-
I
3. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or 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.
[l!ft-
4. Please identify every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors you have
assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
nlft-
r
5. Has any person* associated with this contract had any financial dealings with an official** of the City of Chula
Vista as it relates to this contract within the past 12 months. Yes_ No_
Yli'J
If Yes, briefly describe the nature of the financial interest the official** may have in this contract.
6. Have you made a contribution of more than $250 within the past twelve (12) months to a current member of the
Chula Vista City Council? N6JL.Yes _If yes, which Council member?
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista
California
<;)1<;)10
(619) 6<;)1-5101
e
e
~~f~ .
-.-
Y....;:'"- _....;:'"
~~~..,.,.
p I ann
n g
&
Building
Planning Division I
Department
Development Processing
CIlY OF
CHUIA VISTA
APPLICATION APPENDIX B
Disclosure Statement - Page 2
7. Have you provided more than $340 (or an item of equivalent value) to an official** of the City of Chula Vista in the
past twelve (1~) )l1onths? (This includes being a source of income, money to retire a legal debt, gift, loan, etc.)
Yes_ No~
If Yes, which official** and what was the nature of item provided?
---
~
Date: 1- 6 - 0 I
Print or
type name of Contractor/Applicant
*
Person is defined as: any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, any other county, city, municipality, district, or other
political subdivision, -or any other group or combination acting as a unit.
Official includes, but is not limited to: Mayor, Council member, Planning Commissioner, Member of a board,
commission, or committee of the City, employee, or staff members.
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista
California
91910
(619) 091-5101
PCC-05-032 ISSUES MATRIX
.A TT,q-c tt M e)J T-3
Name and Address Support or Oppose Issue
1.) Nancy and John Parks Support . The house sits far
124 Hilltop back from the street
. Changes can be read
as layers of history
from different eras
. The decks are
stylistic of terraces
on Green and Green
craftsmans in
Pasadena
2.) Georgie Stillman Support . Deck is an essential
580 Twin Oaks part of the character
of the area.
. The deck is an
important feature of
this and other period
coastal historic
homes.
. The removal of the
deck, which they
neighbors have
viewed fireworks for
decades, would be a
great sadness and
disservice.
3.) J. Carlos Fox Support . Deck is appropriate
344 Hilltop Drive for Craftsman home
. Not visible from
front of property
. Not aesthetically
offensive from any
VIew.
4.) Peter J. Watry Support . Not visible from
81 Second Ave Second Avenue
. Preservation has
enhanced CV.
PCC-05-032 Issues Matrix
2
5.) Sandra Duncan Support . No issue with the
262 Second Ave deck that currently
exists. Request
support of CUP
6.) Louise Torio Support . Deck meet Secretary
Historic San Diego of Interior Standards
Marketing and Consulting for modifications to
historically
designated
structures.
. Deck allows Bay
Breeze (the Greg
Rogers House) to
have a link to its
historic location on
the bay by providing
a glimpse of the
water from the deck.
. The deck is stylistic
of the Arts and
Crafts homes of
Southern California.
7.) Jill Galvez Support . Deck was added
more than a decade
ago.
OPPOSITION
1.) Joseph Bustamante Opposed . Deck is not a part of
626 Second Avenue the original
structure.
. Impinges on privacy
of surrounding
neighbors.
. Fair and equitable
treatment (he was
denied a CUP for a
height increase two
years ago.
2.) James Robertson Opposed . Deck is not a part of
622 Second Avenue the original
structure.
. Impinges on privacy
of neighbors.
3.) Glenda De Vaney Opposed . The deck disfigures
200 "K" Street and contributes to
the loss of
distinctive appeal
. The house is an
important part of
history and it's
original integrity
should be
maintained.
4.) Corinne McCall Opposed . The deck severely
642 Second Avenue compromises the
architectural
integrity of the
roofline of the
historic structure.
. Impinges on the
privacy of
neighbors.
. "Remuddled"
disfigurement to a
historic building
5.) James and Imozelle Opposed . Concerned with
McVeigh maintaining the
644 Second Avenue integrity and
character of Second
A venue and its
inventory of historic
homes.
. Deck violates the
historic integrity of
the house and
believe that the deck
is contrary to the
Mills Act.
. It does not meet the
findings for a CUP,
because it does not
contribute to the
general well being
of the community.
. May set precedent
for other property
owners to create
"nonconforming"
situations
PCC-05-032 Issues Matrix
3
~
March 11, 2005
Jvf>pM21- I
Mr. John Schmitz
City Zoning Administrator, Planning Department
Public Services Building, Chula Vista Civic Center
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Subj: PCC-05-032
Weare responding to the Notice of Consideration we recently received in regards to the subject
case number, as we have interest in this request for two reasons.
1. We own the property at 228 I Street, which is directly adjacent to the northwest corner of
Ms. Pamela Bensoussan's back yard. I believe we are the most affected by the height of the
Historic Greg Rogers House. From our back yard we have a close, direct and unobstructed view
of this treasured historic home and its decks.
Our tenants, who rented our home because they love its' charm, also love living in a
neighbourhood surrounding by the history of Chula Vista. We have owned this house since the
1960's and our daughter began her family while living there. In fact, they watched as the Greg
Rogers House was moved to its present location from the parking lot of Black Angus on E Street.
2. We also own an historic home in Chula Vista, The Leo Christy House, and have been
deeply involved in the historic home tours to raise money in support ofthe Heritage Museum and
historic preservation in Chula Vista. My husband and I also have served on the board of the
Chula Vista Heritage Museum Society.
We have tried to help in the effort to preserve Chula Vista's history. We know first hand, as
historic homeowners that it is an expensive labour oflove. As steward of The Greg Rogers
House, Ms. Bensoussan accepted the responsibility to preserve her historic home when she
purchased it with the decks. Unlike other historic homes whose heights exceed the current
zoning limits, the Greg Rogers house sits so far back off of the street that it is hardly visible. We
have all accepted the guidelines of the Mills Act to maintain the historic character of our houses.
All of our homes have had changes made to them over the years. These changes made by
subsequent owners can be read as layers of history from different eras.
Weare confident that Ms. Bensoussan will continue to preserve the Greg Rogers house, one of
our city's most important examples of craftsman style architecture. We feel that the deck
additions are not inappropriate - in fact they are stylistically similar to a number of terraces on
Green and Green craftsman homes in Pasadena. We urge you to approve the request to keep the
present height and style of the decks.
Sincerely,
JOHN PARKS
NANCY PARKS
124 Hilltop Drive, Chula Vista
619-427-1471
cc: Lynnette Tessitore-Lopez, Associate Planner
J~ ?~6 rf- Z
March 16, 2005
City Zoning Administrator John Schmitz
Lynnette Tessitore-Lopez, Associate Planner
Planning Department
Public Services Building, Chula Vista Civic Center
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Re: Case Number PCC-05-032, Conditional Use Application, 616 Second Avenue, 'Historic
Greg Rogers House'
Dear Mr. Schmitz & Ms. Lopez,
I own and reside in the property at 580 Twin Oaks Avenue, directly north and across I street
from the Greg Rogers House, and enjoy a great view of it from my little 1925 bungalow.
The Greg Rogers House is an historic Chula Vista property, and its graceful roofline above the
surrounding trees is a beautiful landmark in our neighbourhood. I and my neighbours take pride
in its presence and in no way find the observation deck anything else but an essential part of the
character of our area.
The observation deck certainly is a prominent and important feature of this and other period
coastal historic homes. The Greg Rogers House was welcomed into our neighbourhood as a
measure to save it from demolition. To take down the deck from which neighbours have viewed
4th of July fireworks for decades, would be a great sadness, if not a disservice to the house, and
would change something I and my neighbours take pleasure and pride in, as we go about our
daily routine.
Ms. Bensoussan has done much to preserve the historic homes and communities of 'old' Chula
Vista, and she, and the Greg Rogers House, is a great asset to our city. I hope you will approve
her request and allow her to keep the house as it is currently.
Sincerely,
Georgie Stillman Mayall
580 Twin Oaks Avenue, CV CA 91910
(619) 429-0610
georgies@cox.net
cJ;ppC)rl3
J. Carlos Fox
Dupree-Gould Home at Gretna Green
344 Hilltop Drive
Chula Vista, California
(619) 851-8891
(619) 851-8891
April 7, 2005
John Smith, City Zoning Administrator
Lynnette Tessitore-Lopez, Associate Planner
Chula Vista Planning Department
Public Services Building, Chula Vista Civic Center
276 F ourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
RE: Case Number PCC-05-032, Conditional Use Application
616 Second Avenue, Historic Greg Rogers House
Dear Mr. Schmitz and Ms.Tessitore-Lopez:
I am writing in support of the conditional use permit requested by Ms. Pamela
Bensoussan with respect to her property located at 616 Second Avenue, more
commonly known as the "Historic Greg Rogers House."
By way of introduction, I am a resident of the City of Chula Vista and the owner
of the Historic Dupree-Gould Home, a Craftsman\Arts & Crafts structure built in
1921. I purchased this home in 1998 and have expended in excess of $200,000 in
restoration, improvements, and landscaping - all designed and intended to restore
the home to the condition appropriate to a home built in the Arts & Crafts era. My
work in this regard is incomplete and ongoing.
Since Chula Vista has changed in many ways since 1921, from a farm community
to a higher density residential area, it would have been inappropriate to restore the
home to an Arts & Crafts era farm house. As a result, prior to undertaking the
restoration of the "disaster" I purchased in 1998, I undertook to learn as much as
possible regarding the history of the era, studied many examples of the era, studied
the architectural clues left by many of the great architects and artisans of the era,
including Greene & Greene, Frank Lloyd Wright, Gustav Stickley as well as local
architects and builders from the era. In my own case, I have modeled my work
after that found in Pasadena, where one of the premier Arts & Crafts homes is
located, the Gamble House, designed by Green and Green. My home is restored
in a manner that is not in any manner similar to what was originally built on this
site in 1921, but in a manner that is historically consistent with the era.
RE: Case Number PCC-05-032, Conditional Use Application
616 Second Avenue, Historic Greg Rogers House
April 7, 2005
Page Two.
As a result of my extensive studies and research I have become quite
knowledgeable, if not expert, at the Craftsman\Arts & Crafts era, and have
developed an expert eye at what is, and more importantly what is not appropriate
for a home built in this era.
In addition to devoting seven years to the restoration of my home, I have also been
active in the community, specifically with that related to historical preservation. I
worked extensively in the community to see the Mills Act adopted by the City of
Chula Vista, I am the President of the Chula Vista Heritage Museum Board, am a
member of the Chula Vista Historical Homeowners Steering Committee, and I am
the 2003 recipient of the "Chula Vista Historical Preservationist of the Year"
award.
During the last seven years I have also come to know and greatly respect the
amazing efforts undertaken by Pamela Bensoussan with the goal of historical
preservation, and specifically the goal of preserving and increasing the
appreciation of the wonderful history of our City of Chula Vista. I am very
familiar and impressed with the ongoing restoration efforts undertaken by Ms.
Bensoussan of the historic Greg Rogers house. Her knowledge and respect of
historical preservation, and her standing in the community, all but guaranty that
she would never even consider maintaining a historical structure in a manner
inconsistent with the history of the building.
I have recently had an opportunity to tour Ms. Bensoussan's home, and reviewed
in detail the modifications to the home undertaken over fifteen years ago by a prior
owner. With the exception of the elevator tower intruding on the roof line, the
modifications made to the home by the prior owner are entirely consistent with a
home of that style and era - a home that not coincidentally, is built during the
same era, and in the same style of my own home, albeit in a much grander scale.
Homes built in the Arts & Crafts\Craftsman style used decks, porches, sleeping
porches, observation areas, and "widow's walks" - all consistent with the decks
installed on the Greg Rogers home. As with my own restoration, the Greg Rogers
home is not presently in a condition that mimics what existed when it was built,
but, with the exception noted above, is presently in a condition that is entirely
consistent with a home of that era. In addition, the placement of the home on the
back of the lot, as well as the mature landscaping that includes extensive and high
trees, ensures that for the most part the home, and the highest deck, is only
minimally visible from the street, if at all.
RE: Case Number PCC-05-032, Conditional Use Application
616 Second Avenue, Historic Greg Rogers House
April 7,2005
Page Three.
I am well aware the Greg Rogers house enjoys the benefits of a Mills Act contract
with the City of Chula Vista, and I am very familiar with the requirements
imposed on a house by the existence of such a contract. A homeowner subject to a
Mills Act contract is under no obligation to restore a home to the condition that
existed when new or to remove and restore modifications that are not visible from
the front of the home.
I have also had an opportunity to read the letters that were written both in support
and opposition to granting the conditional use permit. I know the individuals who
wrote in opposition very well and consider them all to be friends and colleagues.
All are very active in historic preservation efforts, and for the most part their
efforts in this regard are to be applauded and appreciated. Unfortunately, in this
instance their stated effort of historic preservation in opposing the Conditional Use
Permit is both misguided, and evidently and unfortunately tainted by some
personal animosity that I am well aware exists between them and Ms. Bensoussan.
I find it unfortunate that one of the individuals who complained is closely related
to the architect who undertook the engineering of the modifications she now
complains of.
I understand that as part of a prior negotiation with the city Ms. Bensoussan has
agreed to remove the elevator tower from the roof line of the home. This
agreement should be applauded.
I further understand that the remaining dispute involves the upper deck placed on
the back of the home, and the required safety railing that surrounds the deck.
Again, I have recently had an opportunity to view this deck, both from the deck
itself, as well as from the street from the north and east of the home. There is
nothing historically or aesthetically offensive about the deck in question, and the
deck in question is entirely consistent with the Arts & Crafts\Craftsman
architecture.
Finally, I am well aware of the tremendous expense to Ms. Bensoussan in time,
emotion, and money the present controversy surrounding her home has cost her.
All of these efforts would have been better directed towards her ongoing
restoration efforts, including a much needed restoration of period appropriate
colors to the exterior of the home. Painting an ordinary home is an expensive
proposition. Painting an extraordinary home, such as the Greg Rogers home, is
outrageously expensive.
RE: Case Number PCC-05-032, Conditional Use Application
616 Second Avenue, Historic Greg Rogers House
April 7, 2005
Page Four
If allowed to continue, the pending controversy related to the Greg Rogers home
can only serve to discourage others from undertaking the enormous effort required
to preserve our heritage. I urge all concerned to please take whatever action
necessary to bring this controversy to a conclusion and allow Ms. Bensoussan to
better focus her time, talent, and resources on the further preservation and
restoration of the amazing Greg Rogers home. There is no good reason to force
Ms. Bensoussan to butcher her home by removal of the upper deck. I urge you to
find the best method to allow the deck in place.
Very truly yours,
J. Carlos Fox
~~ ppo r/- 1
Peter J. Watry Jr.
81 Second Avenue
Chula Vista. California 91910
r:=-:::;--;7:-i;~-- -:L; -~\
. '. r " I I.S \'->7 b l.
: \ j .---.::--
i t__l r
Ii: \"",\.,
J u APR
..., r; i~~7" ~
'_1".1, . ~~"J. i ,'."
i.:i ts ;, '.
-'" : ~ \ .
~~. ; ~ "
j ~ .1 I
i, i,.../.'
~'
...-..- -
-- L'~~UJ
L
April 7, 2005
PLANniNG
City Zoning Administrator John Schmitz
Lynnette Tessitore-Lopex, Associate Planner
Planning Department, City of Chula Vista
Public Services Building
276 Fourth A venue
Chula Vista 91910
re: Case Number PCC-05-032, Conditional Use Application, 616 Second A venue
Dear Mr. Schmitz & Ms. Lopez,
I am an active member of the Chula Vista Heritage Museum and very interested in historical
facets of my adopted hometown, Chula Vista. Pamela Bensoussan is almost singly responsible for
the revival of interest in historic homes in Chula Vista and for the passage of the Mills Act in our
town.
I am aware of the problems she has had with the City over the past few years and I was
very pleased that she and the City were able to work out an agreement satisfactory to all. I was
equally distressed to find out that now a neighborhood feud has turned personal. Ms. Bensoussan
has taken over ownership of one of the most historic homes in Chula Vista, the Greg Rogers
home, and has used it for many historic purposes. In this case, the observation deck is not visible
from Second A venue and that is one of the conditions of the Mills Act, so there should be no
problem.
Saving the Greg Rogers House, which was primarily the result of actions by former Mayor
Greg Cox, and now letting school kids and others tour the house, which is what Ms. Bensoussan
does, has enhanced the rich history and brought credit to Chula Vista. This neighborhood feud
has not.
Please approve the Conditional Use Application.
Sincerely,
cJt/~?~rI- 6
April 8, 2005
City Zoning Administrator John Schmitz
Lynnette Tessitore-Lopez, Associate Planner
Planning Department, City of Chula Vista
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Case No. PCC-05-032, Conditional Use Application, 616 Second Avenue
Dear Mr. Schmitz & Ms. Lopez:
I live in a house which is on what was formerly the front lawn of the
Cordrey House, the most magnificant "Orchard House" existing in Chula Vista.
(One now has to enter the Cordrey House through the "side door" on Davidson.)
My parents purchased our home in 1951 and it is my privilege to look out my
kitchen window every day at the wonderful Cordrey House, fresWy painted green
and white.
I know that Pamela Bensoussan is responsible for the rebirth of interest
in preserving Chula Vista's legacy in its historic homes. I was pleased to learn that
recent disputes with the City had been resolved about her Greg Rogers House, and
then very disappointed to learn that apparently some neighbors are giving her a hard
time.
I strongly urge you to approve Pamela's Conditional Use Application.
Yours truly,
/1 /1 I'"
/{:I~~fU1A-,~/
Sandra Duncan
262 Second Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
(619) 691-1651
Page 1 of2
Lynnette Tessitore-Lopez
W??CJrf ~
From: historicsandiego@aol.com
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 9:38 AM
To: John Schmitz
Cc: Nancy Lytle; Lynnette Tessitore-Lopez; pamelabens@cox.net
Subject: PCC-05-032 CUP, Greg Rogers House (Bay Breeze)-Letter of Support
April 11, 2005
Mr. John Schmitz
City Zoning Administrator, Planning Department
Public Services Building, Chula Vista Civic Center
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mr. Schmitz:
Subject: PCC-05-032 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, GREG ROGERS HOUSE, BAY BREEZE
For many years I have followed the growing public awareness of historic preservation in Chula Vista
and have watched the City respond to this awareness in a fashion that is commensurate with its
leadership role in the County of San Diego in other areas of Planning. Chula Vista has acted with
sensitivity and responsibility to its historic community by adopting a model version of the Mills Act,
and by moving towards becoming a Certified Local Government and adopting the goal of creating a
comprehensive historic preservation ordinance.
I have been to Bay Breeze (the Greg Rogers House) on many occasions - including watching Fourth of
July fireworks from the observation deck. I am aware of the recent developments with regard to the
improvements to the back of the house that were executed in the mid-1980s shortly after the house
was moved to its present location.
I would like to urge you to grant Ms. Bensoussan the CUP necessary to maintain the observation deck
in its present form. The decks are stylistically similar to those that grace many Arts and Crafts-period
homes in Southern California. As a person who advises on historic preservation issues, I would not
advocate allowing these decks if I felt in any way that they detracted from the historic nature of this
important Chula Vista home.
The house was reviewed by City staff at the time it entered into a Mills Act contract with the City, and
there were no objections to modifications to the back of the house then. The time to make comments
about the decks would have been during its Mills Act review - or decades earlier, when the
modifications were first made by the previous owner. The decks do not violate the spirit of the Mills Act,
and they were not called out as aspects that must be changed as conditions of the contract.
The decks meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards for modifications to historically designated
structures. They also allow Bay Breeze to have a link to its historic location on the bay, by provide a
brief glimpse of the water.
I know that Ms. Bensoussan is a strong preservationist who intends to continue with extensive
preservation efforts to preserve Bay Breeze, including reroofing and painting with historic colors.
I believe she is a proper steward of this local treasure. She has been generous in sharing the Greg
04/11/2005
Page 2 of2
~
Rogers on historic home tours and education tours so that this Chula Vista landmark can be
experienced and enjoyed by many. Even descendants of Greg Rogers have been specially taken
through the home, and have commented in my presence how thrilled they were to see the house in
such good hands. I urge the City to approve Ms. Bensoussan's current request for this CUP.
Sincerely,
Louise Torio
Historic San Diego Marketing & Consulting
619-233-8833
cc: Nancy Maddox Lytle, Assistant Director of Planning; Lynnette Tessitore-Lopez, Associate Planner
04/11/2005
ULlFjDor7 7-
April 7, 2005
City Zoning Administrator John Schmitz
Lynnette Tessitore-Lopez, Associate Planner
Planning Department
Public Services Building, Chula Vista Civic Center
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Re: Case Number PCC-05-032, Conditional Use Application, 616 Second Avenue, 'Historic
Greg Rogers House'
Dear Mr. Schmitz &: Ms. Lopez,
I am writing in support of the conditional use permit for the Historic Greg Rogers House as a fellow
owner of a historic home in Chula Vista and trustee of the Chula Vista Heritage Museum Board.
I've read letters for and against the conditional use application, and fully concur with the thoughts
expressed in support of the permit.
But please allow me to express my shock and disappointment to learn that a historic property, after
being scrutinized and photographed by your department, the Resource Conservation Commission, and
members of our community - long after being legally purchased under California real estate law - could
later be persecuted for architectural features added more than a decade ago by previous owners.
When a homeowner purchases a historic home, he/she needs to feel confident that the city has been a
steward of the property, and that there will be no man-made (political) surprises - only natural ones.
Ms. Bensousson did due diligence when she bought her home. If the city and neighbors at the time
didn't object to the decks, why are they doing so now?
After going through the Mills Act process myself, I felt as if the city was permanently recording every
aspect of my home's exterior to create a historical reference starting point. Was that not the case?
The Hadley Johnson house was modified twice - once in the 1960's and once in the 1970's. Am I allowed
to replace rotted wood in the remodelled sections or must I tear them down if the neighbors object?
We recently replaced our old roof with an identical new cedar shingle roof. Fortunately, our new roof is
Class A fire retardant and conforms to current city codes. But I worry that if the city ever changes its
codes, future stewards of the Hadley Johnson House might decide to watch the roof crumble instead of
replacing it with a plastic look-alike.
Ms. Bensousson's observation decks are perilous to both the home's occupants and their visitors as the
wood rots with termite damage, degrading the Greg Rogers House. It would be a shame if she did not
immediately replace the rotted components for lack of a city permit.
Please understand that many people choose not to accept historic designation for their homes for fear
of increased city regulation (past and future). Please send a clear signal to historic homeowners that
owning an historic home, with layers of history, is not a risky proposition. I hope that you grant Ms.
Bensousson a permit to replace the rotted wood from her existing decks.
Sincerely,
Jill M. Galvez
Hadley Johnson House
7 Cresta Way
Chula Vista, CA 91910
(619)426-3256
UPP()g d /
<r /Jh. 11:', "J ~J)~ 8!'~!r;;Nld
U . Vf; ------------,
I '
! r-'
'{ ,''"'I [ '".' l
~ , {' \ 1 ~ .
'I I:
.j' ",
t:! II l.____----
\~ \ ~,. [?:
16 March, 05
""\ r'
\ i
.. t" ~
1 ~
Joseph Bustamante
626 Second Avenue
Chula Vista, Ca 91910
~- . -." - .._~._~,
Ms. Lynnette- Tessitore-Lopez
Associated Planner, Planning Department
Public Services Building
Chula Vista Civic Center
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Regarding: Case # PCC-05-032, APN:573-180-26-00
Pamela Bensoussan
616 Second Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Ms. Lynnette -Tessitore-Lopez,
I would like to submit my strongest opposition to the approval ofthe requested variance.
I recently was in a similar position, where I was in need of a height variance and even
after reducing the original requested height, redrawing the plans and resubmitting my
request, the Historical Society completely opposed any change to the skyline profile of
the neighborhood that exceeded the 28 ft limit. I understand the 'grandfather clause' that
allows the historical homes to exceed the limit. As the deck structure is not original to
the house, it does not fall under this clause and therefore should not be approved.
It was made clear that the Historical Society did not believe there should be any
exception to this rule and there was not. I withdrew my request as I was severely
restricted by time and even then, my wife had to complete the work on the house after I
had deployed to Iraq. I have been defending the right for fair treatment to all and I
believe that this is a case that calls for fairness. If I were home, I can assure you that I
would be attending the Planning Commission meeting and requesting to speak on this.
Even prior to all the above, my neighbors and I have frequently commented on the
inappropriateness of the deck. It looks down upon all of our back yards, eliminating any
privacy at all. It is so high above all the other homes, that it is the one thing everyone can
see, or conversely be seen from. I have, on several occasions, seen Mrs. Bensoussan's
son the deck with his camera, friends, etc. It is has been very unpleasant and neither my
wife nor I appreciate it.
In closing, my wife and I are severely opposed to the granting of this request. The deck
is not original to the home and therefore does not deserve consideration to being
~-~~ ~
'grandfathered'. Additionally, I have always felt it to be an invasion of privacy to myself
and my neighbors and would have it removed on those grounds alone if possible.
Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Respectfully,
Joseph Bustamante
(JppCJSJld c;<
March 15, 2005
Ms. Lynnette Tessitore-Lopez
Associate Planner, Planning Department
Public Services Building
Chula Vista Civic Center
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Case Number:
Applicant:
PCC-05-032
Pamela Bensoussan
616 Second Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
This letter is in response to a request to exceed the height limit of 28 feet for a single
family dwelling located at 616 Second Avenue.
It is ironic that the Historical Society, including Ms. Bensoussan, fought long and hard to
defeat a request to exceed the 28 foot height limit for a new, single family dwelling just
recently completed at 626 Second Avenue. This Variance was denied.
The deck and railings at this address appear to not have been part of the original
structure and was added at a later date. It has also been recently upgraded even
though it was not permitted. It should also be noted that this upgrade was done even
though there has been a significant delay with no movement on the property split
requirement to construct a garage for the 614 Second Avenue property.
We, as neighbors, resent that this observation deck has been used to observe and
complain that the neighborhood back yards are unsightly and are being used for
storage, vehicle parking, etc. These areas are as much as 200 feet from Second
Avenue home frontage. It is very unfortunate that her home is so large that it must be
positioned on a small lot so it's front yard faces everyone else's back yard. Therefore,
(1) we believe the 28 foot height limit is legitimate and should be enforced and, (2)
because of anticipated future complaints regarding the neighborhood, we feel that this
request should be denied and the deck and railings removed.
Sincerely, ~
C' 0, a~dA..
aJam~son
Ma~orie A. Robertson
622 Second Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Cc: Jim Sandoval
Director of Planning
(Jppc:JSlJd 3
14 Mar 05
Ms. Lynette-Tessitore-Lopez
Planning Department
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Case No. PCC-05-032
Dear Lynette:
I am opposed to the granting of a conditional use permit in the referenced case. As a historic
homeowner and a member of the Chula Vista Historic Homeowners, I am especially sensitive to
the need to maintain the integrity of our historic homes. They are the source of our architectural
heritage, and the means by which we draw many people to our city for our historic home tours.
We must not allow them to be disfigured and thereby lose their distinctive appeal.
I realize that this addition to the house existed before the present owner purchased it and that is
unfortunate. However, the owner is a person knowledgeable about historic preservation and
surely knew at the time that it was not appropriate or correct and that eventually it should be
removed. This house is a particularly important house in the history of Chula Vista and all
possible efforts should be made to maintain its integrity.
Sincerely,
~ [)L~
Glenda de Vaney
6ff6S1Jd '7
Corinne McCall
642 Second Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
March 12, 2005
Ms. Lynette Tessitore-Lopez
Planning Department
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Case no. PCC-05-032
Dear Lynette:
I oppose the granting of a conditional use permit in the above-mentioned case, located at
616 Second Avenue, the historic Greg Rogers house.
This addition severely compromises the architectural integrity of the roofline of this
historic building. Furthermore, allowing this addition would be a violation of the Mills
Act which specifically prohibits this type of defacement of a historic structure.
The Mills Act was designed to protect and preserve the architecture of these historic
buildings for future generations, and this unsightly deck addition is a major detraction
from the Craftsman architecture of the Greg Rogers house.
This is nothing personal, but this observation deck is visible from many angles
throughout the neighborhood, and it also impinges on the privacy of its neighbors.
The city and the entire community need to be stewards of these historic buildings. There
is no purpose or good reason to allow this "re-muddled" disfigurement to this historic
building.
Sincerely,
~L/JJ~
Corinne McCall
..
?
uppL>ud 5"
RECEIVED
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
MAR 1 5 2005
644 Second Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
March 15,2005
PLANNu\j\.,;) Mi\lU DVI;....'"'iI~G DEPT.
BUILDING DIVISION
Ms. Lynette Tessitore-Lopez
Planning Department
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Case no. PCC-05-032
Dear Lynette:
We oppose the granting of a conditional use permit in the above-mentioned case, located
at 616 Second Avenue. We live south of the house in question, in the historic home at
644 Second Avenue
This is a difficult letter for us to write. As we explained two years ago to a homeowner in
a similar case - a person we did not know - our opposition is not "personal." In this case,
involving a homeowner we do know, our opposition most certainly is not personal. We
are simply concerned about maintaining the integrity and character of Second Avenue
and its inventory of historic homes.
The Greg Rogers House is one of the most historic properties in Chula Vista, the only
one to our knowledge that actually holds designation as two historic sites. It is a property
that must be protected and preserved, not just to enhance the neighborhood, but to ensure
that it remains intact for future generations.
In our opinion, the deck violates the historic integrity of the house and is contrary to the
criteria for historic properties under the Mills Act. The City's Mills Act Agreement
specifically prohibits: "Any device, decoration, design, structure or vegetation which is
unsightly by reason of its height, condition, or its inappropriate location." The deck,
which is clearly visible from throughout the neighborhood, is unsightly and detracts from
the home's Craftsman architecture.
Further, we do not believe that the Planning Department can justify the project under the
City's criteria for a conditional use permit. It does not "provide a service or facility that
will contribute to the general well-being of the community."
....
We realize that this case is unique in that the structure already exists. However, if the
City allows an inappropriate remodel to stand, it leaves itself open to a host of similar
violations: A homeowner may proceed with an illegal renovation and then seek the City's
blessing after the fact. The end result, and the damage to a historic property, is the same
as if the City had granted prior permission for an inappropriate addition.
These houses existed long before any of us arrived on the scene, and it is our obligation
to ensure that they are preserved for future generations. For that reason, we respectfully
ask the City not to grant a conditional use permit for this historic home.
1 erely,
e ,\1<<
Cy~?iA
Imozelle T. McVeigh
~ ~ f?.
-.-
"--.....-
.......~
--
MALHMDJT 1-
CIlY Of
CHUlA VISTA
Memorandum
I>epa"-':...e:a-It <>1' Pla:a-I1:Ii:a-Ig a:a-Id B-u.:ild:i:a-Ig
Date:
February 25, 2005
To:
File PCC-05-032
Via:
Marilyn Ponseggi; Environmental Review Coordinator
From:
Nancy Lytle; Assistant Planning Director
Subject:
PCC-05-032; Conditional Use Permit to exceed the height limitation
I have reviewed the proposed conditional use permit to exceed the height limit of the single-
family residential zone to allow for an observation deck on the Greg Rogers House (Historic
Site No. 26). Specifically, I have been asked to determine if the addition ofthe observation
deck to the historic structure is consistent with the Secretary of Interiors' Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties. Based on my knowledge of the standards and my experience
in the field of historic preservation it is my opinion that the addition of the observation deck,
with railings that extend above the ridgeline 1 foot 9 inches, is consistent with the Secretary of
Interior's Standards and would not necessitate further environmental review on the basis of
historic impacts.
Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties:
1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires
minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.
Finding: The property continues in use as a single family residence.
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of
historic materials or alterations of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be
avoided.
Finding: The railing, the subject of the conditional use permit, did not require the removal
of historic fabric for it's construction on the roof.
3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes
that create a false sense of his torica 1 development, such as adding conjectural features or
architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.
Finding: The railing does not create a false sense of historical development in that it
appears applied and diffferentiated from the original roof.
4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in
their own right shall be retained and preserved.
Finding: The railing is a recent addition, not a period addition.
5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship
that characterize a property shall be preserved.
Finding: The railing does not interfere with the distinguishing architectural elements of
the historic home. It sits atop the roof.
6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of
deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the
old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials.
Finding: The railing appears independent of the rest of the structure and is a recent
addition. The historic roof must be in sound shape to support the railing, therefore, it may
have indirectly motivated fulfillment of this standard.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic
materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be
undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
Finding: The railing is not a surface treatment or cleaning method.
8. Significant archaeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved.
If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.
Finding: The railing did not affect any archaeologic resource as it is located on the roof of
a structure.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic
materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old
and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect
the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
Finding: The railing is differentiated from and subsidiary to the roof, a defining element of
the historic home.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a
manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic
property and its environment would be unimpaired.
Finding: The railing can be removed in the future without damaging the integrity of the
historic home.
Robert Pitcairn, Jr. House
Pasadena, California
1906
Robert Pitcairn, Jr., son of a wealthy and prominent Pennsylvania Railroad execu-
tive, hired the Greenes in 1906 to build his home after he had lived in a house they
had designed. The Pitcairn house would combine the entire lexicon of their mature
design elements: a shingled exterior; a roof pitch of three feet, ten inches in twelve
feet; major interior and exterior timbers; deeply overhanging eaves; exposed rafters,
purlins, and beams that project significantly beyond the eaves; "Malthoid" roofing that
integrates the roof with the rain gutters; an up-swept "lift" in the ends of the ridge
beam; basement ventilation made of Chinese blocks of green-glazed terra-cotta; and
casement windows. Most important were the terraces and sleeping porches that
extend the outdoor living space on the upper level.
Pamela Bensoussan, 616 Second Ave
CUP Application PCC-05-032
"
~"<'ii':: ~~" J",'
~./ c,t.1.."\~~~F}') ?;'J,,:.~ ,'.' x
,.g},-,~.,~:~~~ '\I~t~i;.f.yrf l'rr~~ ~~:rrtiJ{r_-~tj},~
The Gamble House)
Pasadena, California.
Designed by Greene and Greene (views from the front and back)
Pamela Bensoussan, 616 Second Ave
CUP Application PCC-05-032
',"'"'....
'~~~rT'>y--T' '1 i~'?
rA-...J:,.,....,.,' ....j
,~ '" ",,:~-"',:--::':-: - '!'l
~~,_::.__.-'.~_-, ',_. ,-~~ ' '~_~._-r1,~
'; . . .aY l,.~,~,~~,~~~,
-4~V ~___t
~......~..-. ,... .',
'; ~ -, ',-.,,'~
~
.~~~~ I
.",,; -.,~.. t
~~ .-.....~,
"''''-,.
'-~
,~
~
...
~
...:"..=
:!:m:rt~ '_~~'
..
..)~~
.;-.-.. .., ...J ... ..... ... ..'I.....""....,' "",'" !'......
\11, "'~t~.."",.,'ii~.~"-:~
i .. .'i!t?~ .' .
.'
Dr. George S. Hull House & Office
Pasadena, California
Green and Green, 1897
Pamela Bensoussan, 616 Second Ave
1. ..
r. ....
" "1
1 " 'f
~~ -:
'i ..~
41....
'....;,
" ..,.#~-~
j
j --'-
!
~..."'E5" ..n'.'..."t~
..:.. ,,~., ':}
~ i ~. . i
i '.,: j
I L:=J.j
,. ..............
!
CUP Application PCC-05-032
k4CHMe)JT h
I
,~
" i
,~., ~':;;l~ ~--
"
Pamela Bensoussan, 616 Second Ave
CUP Application PCC-05-032
A7f4LHME:.N T (
RESOLUTION NO. PCC-05-032
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION TO APPROVE A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT, PCC-05-032, TO EXCEED THE HEIGHT LIMIT OF
THE R-1, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE. APPLICANT:
PAMELA BENSOUSSAN, 616 SECOND AVENUE.
WHEREAS, on March 2, 2004 a code enforcement case was filed with the City
of Chula Vista; and
WHEREAS, staff has worked with the applicant to remedy a non-conforming
situation; and
WHEREAS, staff determined that a conditional use permit would be required
for the guardrails of the existing observation deck because the guardrails exceed the
height limit of the R-l Zone by I foot 9 inches and were not approved as part of the
dwelling group CUP obtained when the structure was moved to the site; and
WHEREAS, on January 6, 2005 a duly verified application for a conditional
use permit was received; and
WHEREAS, on March 8, 2005 a notice of consideration by the Zoning
Administrator on this action was sent out to property owners and residents within 500
feet of the exterior boundaries of the property; and
WHEREAS, several public comments were received on this action, therefore
the Zoning Administrator chose to forward the matter to Planning Commission for
decision; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed
project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has
determined that the project qualifies for a Class 31 categorical exemption pursuant to
Section 15331 (Historical resource Restoration/Rehabilitation) of the State CEQA
Guidelines. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator set the time and place for a hearing on
said request for a conditional use permit 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 and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of
the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely
May 25, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, after considering all reports, evidence, and testimony present at
said public hearing with respect to the conditional use permit application, the Planning
Commission voted to approve the conditional use permit application.
PCC-05-032
- 2-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby make the findings required by the City's rules and
regulations for the issuance of Conditional Use Permits, as herein below set forth, and
sets forth, thereunder, the evidentiary basis that permits the stated finding to be made..
I. That the proposed use at this 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 deck and associated guardrails, were added as part of the restoration of a historically
significant structure considered to be of value to the community. These are features of
several craftsman homes and according to the federal standards for treatment of historic
properties, these features do not significantly alter the historic structure. The historic
structure, with the guardrails of the deck, will continue to contribute to the general well
being of the neighborhood and the community through the preservation of a historic
resource that exemplifies how adaptations may be made to a structure without affecting
the historic significance of the structure.
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.
The proposed height deviation is to allow for the guardrails of an existing deck that
facilitates a periodic view of the bay. The location of the deck does not encourage
frequent use and therefore will not 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. In addition, the guardrails, which exceed the ridgeline of the existing
historic structure by only I foot nine inches, are a necessary element for safe use of the
observation deck.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in
the code for such use.
The proposed observation deck is a component of the existing single family residence.
The residential function and character of the primary residential use will not be altered by
the allowance of the height deviation of the observation deck. Further, the primary use
will continue to comply with all other the regulations and conditions specified in Title 19
for residential uses.
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 granting of this conditional use permit would not adversely affect the General Plan
of the City of Chula Vista. The allowance of guardrails for an observation deck that
exceed the height limitation of the Single-Family Residential Zone, is consistent with the
PCC-05-032
- 3 -
Housing and Community Character Goals and Objectives of the General Plan to:
accommodate diversity in housing types, while maintaining an orientation to detached
single-family living, in that the observation deck is an accessory use and does not change
the single-family residential character of the residential dwelling unit.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that The City Council hereby grants Conditional Use
Permit PCC-05-032, subject to the following conditions, whereby the Applicant and/or
property owners shall:
I. Prior to the issuance of any permits required by the City of Chula Vista for the use of the
subject property in reliance upon this approval, the Applicant shall satisfy the following
requirements:
A. The property owner and the applicant shall execute this document by signing the lines
provided below; said execution indicating that the property owner and applicant have each
read, understood and agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution, this
document shall be recorded with the County Recorder of the county of San Diego, at the
sole expense of the property owner and/or applicant, and a signed, stamped copy returned
to the City's Planning and Building Department. Failure to return a signed and stamped
copy of this recorded document within ten days of recordation to the City Clerk shall
indicate the property owner/applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding
application for building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without
approval. Said document will also be on file in the City Clerk's Office.
Signature of property owner
of 616 Second Avenue
Date
Planning and Building Department Conditions
B. The Applicant shall submit plans for building permits for all work to be done to the house.
Said plans shall comply with all requirements of the Building Division and the following
2001 Energy requirements and all applicable codes including but not limited to the
following:
. California Building Code
. California Plumbing Code
. California Electrical Code
. California Mechanical Code
C. Planting to screen the balcony shall be installed to the satisfaction ofthe City.
General Services
D. Replace the two damaged sections of the existing sidewalk located in front of the driveway
and any other damaged sections along the easterly portion of the parcel. In addition, the
PCC-05-032
-4-
driveway approach, if feasible, shall be widened to prevent further damage to the sidewalk,
parkway and curbline.
II. The following on-going conditions shall apply to the subject property as long as it relies upon
this approval.
A. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans
dated May 25, 2005 (including a site plan and floor plan) on file in the Planning
Division; the conditions contained herein; and Title 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code.
B. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted conditions imposed
after approval of this permit to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to
health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance written notice to the
Permittee and after the City has given to the Permittee the right to be heard with regard
thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose
a substantial expense or deprive Permittee of a substantial revenue source, which the
Permittee cannot, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to
economically recover.
C. This Conditional Use Permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized or
extended within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section
19.14.250 of the Municipal Code.
D. Any violations of the terms and conditions of this permit shall be grounds for
revocation or modification of permit.
E. Applicant/operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
harmless City, its Council members, officers, employees, agents and representatives,
from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs,
including court costs and attorneys' fees (collectively, "liabilities") incurred by the City
arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this conditional
use permit, (b) City's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether
discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and
(c) applicant's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby.
Applicant/operator shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a
copy of this conditional use permit where indicated, above. Applicant' s/operator' s
compliance with this provision is an express condition of this conditional use permit
and this provision shall be binding on any and all of Applicant' s/operator' s successors
and assigns.
F. It is the intention of the Planning Commission that its adoption of this Resolution is
dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition
herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions
are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or
unenforceable, this resolution and the permit shall be deemed to be automatically
revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio.
PCC-05-032
- 5 -
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 25th day of May 2005, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Marco P. Cortes, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
J :\Planning\Case Files\-05 (FY 04-05)\PCC\ZA\PCC-05-032\Resolution\Resolution PCC-05-032 05-12-2005.doc
A7T AC H- J&-Vl f?vV T 2?
RESOLUTION NO. PCC-05-032
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION TO DENY A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT, PCC-05-032, TO EXCEED THE HEIGHT LIMIT OF THE R-l,
SINGLE-F AMIL Y RESIDENTIAL ZONE. APPLICANT: PAMELA
BENSOUSSAN, 616 SECOND AVENUE.
WHEREAS, on March 2, 2004 a code enforcement case was filed with the City
of Chula Vista; and
WHEREAS, staff has worked with the applicant to remedy a non-conforming
situation; and
WHEREAS, staff determined that a conditional use permit would be required
for the guardrails of the existing observation deck because the guardrails exceed the
height limit of the R-l Zone by I foot 9 inches and were not approved as part of the
dwelling group CUP obtained when the structure was moved to the site; and
WHEREAS, on January 6, 2005 a duly verified application for a conditional
use permit was received; and
WHEREAS, on March 8, 2005 a notice of consideration by the Zoning
Administrator on this action was sent out to property owners and residents within 500
feet of the exterior boundaries of the property; and
WHEREAS, several public comments were received on this action, therefore
the Zoning Administrator chose to forward the matter to Planning Commission for a
decision; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed
project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has
determined that the project qualifies for a Class 31 categorical exemption pursuant to
Section 15331 (Historical resource Restoration/Rehabilitation) of the State CEQA
Guidelines. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator set the time and place for a hearing on
said request for a conditional use permit 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 and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of
the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and
PCC-05-032 Resolution of Denial
- 2 -
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely
May 25,2005 at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, after considering all reports, evidence, and testimony present at
said public hearing with respect to the conditional use permit application, the Planning
Commission voted to deny the conditional use permit application:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission is
unable to make the findings, as set forth below, required by the City's rules and
regulations to approve the issuance of conditional use permits. Therefore, the request to
issue a conditional use permit (PCC-05-032) to allow the deck to exceed the R-l Zone's
height regulations is denied. The evidentiary basis that prohibits the required findings
from being made is provided after each of the findings set forth below.
I. That the proposed use at this 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 deck does not provide a desirable facility that would contribute to the general well
being of the neighborhood or community because it is not a part of the original
architecture of the historic structure and detracts from the historic structure from the rear
and side public views. Furthermore, the addition of a deck which is over 30-foot in the
air only benefits the property owner and adds nothing to the neighborhood/community.
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.
The proposed height deviation is to allow for the guardrails of an existing deck (the deck
requires guardrails of at least 36" high). The proposed deviation will 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 as the observation deck allows for
the impingement on the privacy of the surrounding residential parcels. Furthermore, the
proposed observation deck is an unnecessary addition to the existing single family
residence. Another deck already exists, on the same side of the house, that is below the
height limit. Though, the residential function and character of the primary residential use
will not be altered by the allowance of the height deviation of the observation deck, the
height limit of the R -1 zone is set at a maximum of 28 feet to ensure that the intensity of
structures is consistent with a single-family residential environment. In this case, the
allowance of a second deck that exceeds the height limit, is not a situation that
necessitates deviating from the height limit of the single-family residential zone.
PCC-05-032 Resolution of Denial
- 3 -
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in
the code for such use.
The Zoning Ordinance specifies that a structure may exceed the height limits in a R-l
Zone if the regulations and condition specified in the Zoning Ordinance for a conditional
use permit can be met. However, the evidence presented shows that the proposed deck
and guardrails will be inconsistent with the requirements of the Zoning Code, therefore
Finding No.3 cannot be made.
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.
Although, the granting of this conditional use permit may not directly affect the General
Plan of the City of Chula Vista, allowing for deviations from development standards in
unnecessary circumstances, such as this, will eventually adversely affect the Goals and
Objectives of the General Plan to maintain the single-family residential character of
established neighborhoods.
DENIED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 25th day of May 2005, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Marco P. Cortes, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
J:\Planning\Case Files\-05 (FY 04-05)\PCC\ZA\PCC-05-032\Resolution\Resolution PCC-05-032 05-12-2005 denial.doc