HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1988/07/27 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, July 27, 1988 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of June 22, 1988
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning
Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's juris-
diction but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's
presentation may not exceed five minutes.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-88-23M Conditional Use Permit: Request to
expand a mini-warehouse facility at 340 Naples
Street - Naples Street Investors Ltd. (Continued)
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-88-20: Request to reduce side yard
setbacks and increase height of fencing in front
yard setback on Lot 158 of Rancho Robinhood III
subdivision - Dennis E. White
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-88-19: Request to retain existing
lot coverage of 46.2% at 165 Murray Street -
Joseph A. Raso
4. REPORT: Formation of proposed Open Space District No. 18 -
Rancho del Sur
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of August 3, 1988
at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers
TO: City Planning Commission
FROM: George Krempl, Director of Planning ~.~
SUBJECT: Staff Report on Agenda Items for Planning Commission Meeting
of July 27, 1988
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-88-23M: Request to expand
a miniwarehouse facility located at 340 Naples Street
Naples Street Investors, Inc.
The City Council, at their meeting of April 26, 1988, considered an appeal of
a denial of a major use permit to expand an existing mini-warehouse at 340 Naples
Street and was presented with revised plans and elevations enhancing the archi-
tecture of the proposed expansion. Council voted to continue the hearing on the
appeal until the Montgomery Planning Committee had reviewed the new architectural
design and had an opportunity to comment.
The Montgomery Planning Committee, at their meeting of June 1, 1988, voted to
continue the hearing on the Council referral until July 20, 1988, in order to
allow staff to formulate proposed conditions of approval and findings for
approval of the major use permit (staff's recommendation to the Committee was
for denial of the major use permit, therefore, conditions of approval were not
available). The hearing was automatically continued to August 3 when the meeting
of July 20 was cancelled.
Staff is again requesting that the hearing before the Planning Commission on the
Council referral be continued to the meeting of August 10, 1988 to allow time
for the Montgomery Planning Committee to formalize their recommendation.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of July 27, 1988 Page 1
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-88-20; request to reduce sideward
setbacks and increase height of fencing in front yard
setback on Lot 158 of Rancho Robinhood III
subdivision - Dennis E. White
A. BACKGROUND
1. This item involves the following requests: (a) reduce the sideyard
setback on the southerly property line from 25 feet to 15 feet, (b)
reduce the sideyard setback on the northerly property line from 25
feet to 23 feet, and (c) increase the height of fencing in the front
yard setback from 3.5 feet to 5.0 feet.
2. The project is exempt from environmental review.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion
to approve the request, ZAV-88-20, to reduce the sideyard setbacks from
25'-15' on southerly property line , 25' to 23' on northerly property line
and increase fence height from 3-1/2' to 5' in the front property line,
subject to the following condition:
a. Site plan and architectural review by the Planning Director.
Failure to comply with this condition of approval shall cause this permit
to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions of revocation.
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent zoning and land use.
North R-E-P Single Family
South P-C Vacant
East R-E-P Single Family
West R-E-P Vacant
Existin~ site characteristics.
The site is vacant and zoned R-E-P (Residential Estate/Precise Plan). The
property is an irregular-shaped panhandle lot with approximately 16,700
sq. ft. of area, and sloping topography which rises some 30 feet from the
westerly property line to the easterly property line. The lots to the
north and east contain single family dwellings, while the lot to the west
and the acreage to the south are vacant.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of Page 2
Proposed request.
The request is to vary from the sideyard setback requirements by l0 feet
on the south and 2 feet on the north in order to construct a 3,000 sq. ft.
single family dwelling on the easterly portion of the site, and a swimming
pool on the westerly portion of the site in the front yard setback area.
The request for an increase in fence height in the front setback would be
to accommodate the necessary fencing to enclose the pool.
D. ANALYSIS
The site is subject to the yard requirements established by the precise
plan for the Rancho Robinhood III subdivision. This development includes
a combination of standard and custom lots on the more developable portions
of the site and the retention of almost 50% of lO0-acre project area as
permanent open space. As a result, most of the standard lots and some of
the custom lots are less than the 20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size required
in the basic R-E zone.
The property in question is one of only six lots subject to the most
restrictive sideyard requirements which caLl for 25 ft. minimum on each
side. The remaining 32 custom lots in the 110 unit subdivision are
subject to setbacks of 18 ft. on one side and 7 ft. on the other, while
the 72 standard lots require 10 ft. on each side which is consistent with
the basic R-E zone standard.
The only apparent reason for requiring the most restrictive sideyards on
the six lots in question is that these are the only "custom panhandle"
lots in the project. There are other standard panhandle lots which are
subject to the least restrictive setbacks, and there are larger custom
lots which front upon a public street which are subject to the less
restrictive custom standard of 18'/7'. In this sense, we believe the
restriction is somewhat arbitrary.
An additional factor is that Lot 158 is by far the smallest of the six
lots subject to the 25'/25' sideyard requirement. At 16,700 sq. ft., it
is 3,100 sq. ft. less than the next largest lot and 7,000 sq. ft. less
than the average of all six lots (the remaining five lots contain square
footages of 19,800, 22,400, 23,000, 29,200 and 30,900 sq. ft.
respectively; the 22,400 and 29,200 sq. ft. lots have increased their
square footages to 31,400 and 41,800 by the purchase of adjacent acreage
since the original subdivision.
In essence, then, this 16,700 sq. ft. lot -- which in actuality contains
approximately 14,300 sq.ft, of developable area excluding the access
drive--is subject to sideyard setbacks which are 2.5 time greater than
that applied to a standard R-E zoned lot requiring a minimum lot size of
20,000 sq. ft. Also, the area of greatest encroachment from 25 ft. to 15
ft. along the southerly property line abuts the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific
Plan area which shows an interface of open space and estate housing at the
approximate location of the applicant's lot.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of Page 3
E. NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT
A petition has been received from 13 residents of the immediate area
requesting denial of the variance, as well as seeking the City's
assistance in limiting the building height to one story. The petition
notes residents' concerns over view obstruction which will occur with a
building higher than one story. The Municipal Zoning Regulations allow
single family dwellings of 2-1/2 stories, up to 28 ft. in height as a
matter of right. In addition, other two-story houses exist in the
immediate area.
F. FINDINGS OF FACT ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. The lot in question contains approximately 16,700 sq. ft. and a depth
of 100 ft. The setbacks prescribed in the R-E zone are in
anticipation of lots having a minimum of 20,000 sq. ft. and a lot
depth of approximately 200 ft.
2. Other properties in the general vicinity have setback requirements
less restrictive than the subject lot.
3. The lot abuts an open space to the rear and is proposed to be graded
l0 ft. lower than the immediate parcel to the east. The increased
fence height is necessary to comply with pool safety standards.
~. The General Plan is not affected by the granting of this request.
WPC 5384P
~~SB ~UKr. EY PRIY~, ~
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATE~NT
IAPPLICANT'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:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
Denn±$ E. Wh±te
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
Dennis E. White
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list
the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation
or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) 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.
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No × If yes, please indicate person(s)
Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association,
soc-'6E~T club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate,
this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other
political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary?r-.. ~
-Signature of applicant/date
WPC 0701P ... ~enn±$ E. Wh±te/o~.er
A-110 Print or type name of applicant
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 27, 1988 Page 1
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-88-19; Request to retain existin~ lot
coverage of 46.2% at 165 Murray Street - J. Anthony
Raso
A. BACKGROUND
1. This item involves a request to retain the existing lot coverage at
46.2% for the single-family dwelling at 165 Murray Street in the R-1
zone rather than reducing the lot coverage to 40% as called for by
the Municipal Code.
2. The history of this matter dates back to February, 1986. Following
is a recap of events:
2/26/86 - Official Stop Work Order issued to the applicant because
the house contained a third story, exceeded lot coverage
and numerous discrepancies were noted in the field compared
with the approved building plans (including a stairway to
the upper level and an overall roof height of 42 feet).
3/24/86 - Variance filed by applicant to increase lot coverage from
40 to 61 percent and allow a third story.
4/23/86 - Planning Commission denied the variance request by a vote
of 5-0 with one abstention and one member absent.
5/06/86 - City Council denied the variance but indicated they might
be willing to reconsider based upon the applicant's offer
to redesign the house and work with the Design Review
Committee on alternate designs.
5/19/86 - The Design Review Committee was unable to make a
6/05/86 recommendation on the exterior building design because of a
lack of detail on the plans. They suggested professional
design assistance be sought by the applicant. He declined.
6/11/86 - The Planning Commission reconsidered the variance request
and denied it 6-0 with one member absent.
6/17/86 - City Council reconsidered the variance and adopted staff
recommendation and resolution, 4-1. This action was to
deny the variance request for the third story and deny the
lot coverage variance for 61%, but approve a variance for
46.2%. The latter was based on conditions which called for
removal of the accessory building, lowering the roof height
to a maximum 30 feet to the highest point and the exterior
design being~eviewed and approved by the Design Review
Committee. Staff was to work with the applicant on a
redesign and come back to Council with cost estimates for
implementation. City participation in the cost for design
was expressed as a possibility.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of July 27, 1988 Page 2
7/8/86 - Planning Department report on process to select an
architect for redesign of the house exterior accepted by
Council. City Attorney to prepare an agreement to be
executed with the applicant.
8/5/86 - City Council decided not to proceed with architectural
redesign. Council unanimously revoked its previous partial
variance approval and denied the lot coverage variance and
story variance. The applicant was directed to lower the
top of the roof to 35 feet (as depicted on the original
approved building pla-~); remove the shed in the rear yard,
open up the roof area over the swimming pool and remove the
stair access and flooring to the upper level. The work to
all be completed within 120 days of the lifting of the stop
work order.
9/2/86 - Stop work order lifted. All compliance work to be
completed by 1/2/87.
2/10/87 - City Council passed a resolution authorizing a 60-day
extension to complete the work to open up the covered area
over the swimming pool. This period expired 4/10/87.
(Applicant had reduced roof height to 35 ft. and removed
shed.)
2/28/87 - Letter sent by Mr. Raso to the Building and Housing
Department that opening up the pool impractical and of no
benefit. Further, additional land has been acquired from
the two lots to the east no longer resulting in the lot
exceeding the 40% coverage limit.
3/13/87 - City Council information item and letter from the Planning
Director to Mr. Raso stating that the lot expansion
solution is unacceptable.
4/07/87 - Drawing received from Mr. Raso as to intent with respect to
improvements now within the attic area.
4/14/87 - Written communication from Mr. Raso to the City Council.
Copies of Council minutes and actions and Planning
Commission actions are included with the letter.
4/28/87 - Council directed staff to have an engineering analysis done
on the house to assess the feasibility and approximate cost
of opening the area above the pool.
7/14/87 - Council considered engineering analysis that showed lot
coverage could be reduced to 40% in three alternative ways
at a cost of from $10,000 to $30,000. Council deferred
action on this issue to allow applicant to pursue a
variance to retain the existing lot coverage, but directed
Mr. Raso to comply with requirement to remove access and
certain improvements to the "attic."
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of July 27, 1988 Page 3
7/15/87 - Applicant filed variance to increase lot coverage from 40
to 46.2%.
8/26/87 - Planning Commission denied the variance request by a 5-0
vote.
9/8/87 - City Council voted 4-1 to approve the variance subject to
the following conditions: reduce roof height to 30 ft.; no
access to or use of 2nd story deck; "attic" access limited
to crawl space and all facilities in attic removed (hot
tub, fireplaces, plumbing); remove french door access from
deck to attic and install permanent wall improvements;
2x6's installed over existing attic flooring; provide
landscape buffer on rear of house subject to
review/approval of City Landscape Architect; all of the
above to be accomplished within 45 days or variance shall
be null and void.
10/28/87- City Attorney notifies applicant that conditions have not
been met; variance is null and void and lot coverage must
be reduced to 40%.
12/1/87 - Mr. Raso files claim for damages against the City citing
loss of use and value of property and emotional distress
resulting from City's improper interpretation and
application of Codes, unreasonable conditions of approval
for a variance, and selective enforcement, among other
things.
1/12/88 - Council and Mr. Raso agreed to first of several extensions
of time to act on claim. Last extension granted to meeting
of 8/9/88.
5/27/88 - Applicant files present request.
3. The proposal is exempt from environmental review as a Class 5(a)
exemption.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a motion to deny ZAV-88-19.
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent zoning and land use.
North R-1 Single-family dwelling
South R-1 Single-family dwelling
East R-1 Single-family dwelling
West R-1 Single-family dwelling
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of July 27, 1988 Page 4
Existing site characteristics.
The property in question is a level, rectangular, single-family lot
containing 8,824.4 sq. ft. of area and measuring 65 ft. x 135.76 ft.
The parcel is surrounded by R-1 lots of similar size in a stable
single-family neighborhood.
Proposed request.
This application has been filed in order to retain an expanded single
family dwelling in its present configuration. The 35 ft. high,
8,000+ sq. ft. single-family dwelling covers 4,085 sq. ft. or 46.2%
of the lot. Coverage in the R-1 zone is limited to 40%, or in this
case 3,530 sq. ft., a difference of 555 sq. ft. Although the floor
area ratio (FAR) is more than twice the allowable 0.45 single family
standard, the original building permit for the project was issued
prior to the adoption of the FAR restriction.
In support of the request, the applicant has offered to record deed
restrictions on the property -- that would run with the land and be
enforceable by the City as well as the owner of any property on the
lO0 blocks of Murray or Halsey Streets -- which would (1) prohibit
the use of the third level and deck for any purpose other than
enclosed storage, (2) remove and close all third level window
openings, (3) remove the existing internal stairway to the third
level, and (4) reduce the opening between the third floor and the
deck to 22 inches x 36 inches for services only (please see attached
for copy of proposed deed restrictions and third level floor plan
with notations by applicant).
D. ANALYSIS
Lot coverage restrictions have been established in order to help control
the size or bulk of structures in relation to the size and use of
property. In the case of single-family parcels, the standard is
established at 40% lot coverage.
Lot coverage and other bulk standards, including setback restrictions, are
designed to allow ample interior residential living space, while, at the
same time, limiting the size and location of structures consistent with
the light, air, privacy, and open space standards and aesthetic values
which have come to be expected in R-1 single-family residential living
environments.
Section 19.14.140 of the Municipal Code provides, in part, that "The
granting of a variance is an administrative act to allow a variation from
the strict application of the regulations of the particular zone, and to
provide a reasonable use for a parcel of property having unique
characteristics by virtue of its size, location, design or topographical
features, and its relationship to adjacent or surrounding properties and
developments. The purpose of the variance is to bring a particular parcel
up to parity with other property in the same zone and vicinity insofar as
a reasonable use is concerned, and it is not to grant any special
privilege or concession not enjoyed by other properties in the same zone
and vicinity .... "
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of July 27, 1988 Page 5
The property under consideration is a level and rectangular 65'x135.76'
R-1 parcel containing 8,824.4 sq. ft. of lot area. The parcel exceeds the
present lot size and width requirements for standard R-1 lots (7,000 sq.
ft. in area and 60 ft. in width), and is surrounded by R-1 lots of like
size in a stable R-1 single-family neighborhood. Under the applicable R-1
40% lot coverage and height restrictions, this parcel can accommodate a
single story footprint containing 3,529.7 sq. ft. of coverage or a
two-story dwelling containing 7,059.4 sq. ft. There appears to be nothing
unique about the subject parcel by virtue of its size, location, design or
topographical features or its relationship to adjacent properties which
would prevent the reasonable use of the property under the strict
application of the R-1 zone lot coverage restrictions.
E. CONCLUSION
Since the claim was filed by Mr. Raso in December 1987, staff from the
Manager's office, Building and Housing Department, Planning Department and
City Attorney's Office have pursued possible options to litigation with
Mr. Raso and his attorney. The only alternate for which there was any
agreement to proceed with is the present variance request. The exchange
for forgiving the lot coverage excess is a substantial benefit by
precluding use of the deck and severely limiting the use of the upper
level. This could increase the peace and quiet and privacy for the
adjoining single family residents. If the Commission wished to favorably
consider the variance, we would recommend a two week continuance to
prepare new findings. On balance though, the Planning Department still
recommends denial of the variance.
F. FINDINGS
1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act
of the owner exists. Said hardship may include practical
difficulties in developing the property for the needs of the owner
consistent with the regulations of the zone; but in this context,
personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective
profits, and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a
variance. Further, a previous variance can never have set a
precedent, for each case must be considered only on its individual
merits.
There is no apparent hardship peculiar to the property in that
the lot is a level, rectangular parcel containing 8,824 sq. ft.
of lot area which can accommodate 3,530 sq. ft. of coverage
under the 40% R-1 standard. As noted above, the financial
burden of reducing lot coverage is not a hardship justifying a
variance.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of July 27, 1988 Page 6
2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same
zoning district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if
granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient
not enjoyed by his neighbors.
The dwelling size can be modified to comply with the 40% lot
coverage provision and maintain a total floor area exceeding
other single family dwellings located within the vicinity.
Neighboring properties are at or below 40% coverage.
3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial
detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the
purposes of this chapter or the public interest.
The granting of the variance would authorize coverage and bulk
in excess of that enjoyed by adjacent properties. A reduction
in coverage would reduce the visual impact of the dwelling.
4. That the authorizing of such variance will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental
agency.
The authorization of the variance is inconsistent with the
objectives of the General Plan as they relate to the visual
quality and the scale of buildings within single family
neighborhoods.
WPC 5363P
"1" STREET
I I ' __1 I I I
I I I /
'- '1- I I: I
2. _J t MITSCH ER ST.
~ ~ HALSEY ST. m HAI.~EY
' ''""
~mil~ I
~ i I I I I
L_ I
KING SI
I I I i I
I
' [ t [ [ -I-~- ~-~M- t
I I I ~ I I I I I I I t I I I [ I
"~" ~T~E~T
I I I I I _-- ~
t I ~----- I p_
-- - ___~ .... L_~
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
Lot Coverage Compliance
EXHIBIT "B"
Declaration of Restrictions
Recitals
A. Joseph A. Raso (declarant) is the owner of the property
at 165 Murray Street ia the City of Chula Vista, California
(subject property). A complete legal description of the subject
property is attached, labeled Exhibit A and incorpdrated here by
reference.
B. Before 1988, additions were made to the residence on the
subject property which caused the residence to occupy 46.2% of
the lot where the maximum lot coverage permitted by the City of
Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance would be 40%.
C. The residence on the s~bject property has three levels.
Declarant believes that pursuant to the City's Zoning Ordinance
the three levels comprise or could be made to comprise 2 1/2
stories and could legally be used for living quarters together
with an outside deck. Declarant further believes that the floor
area ratio restrictions ad:~pted as part of the City's Zoning
Ordinance after the building permit was issued for the addition
and substantial construction was completed in good faith would
not preclude such use of the third level for general living
purposes. The City disputes these beliefs in whole or in part.
D. Declarant has applied to the City for a variance to
maintain the 46.2% lot coverage and in exchange for approval of
said variance has offered to agree on behalf of himself, his
heirs, successors and assigns to forego any use of the third
level including the open decks except that he may use the
enclosed portion of the third level for storage purposes.
E. This declaration is intended to and shall carry out
decl§rant's agreeement to limit the use of said third level,
shall run in favor of and shall be e-nforceable by the City of
Chula Vista and the owner of any property in the 100 block of
Murray Street or the 100 block of Halsey Street in the City of
Chula Vista, comprise a plan for the development and use of the
subject property, and shall be referred to in every later deed
conveying any interest in the subject property.
Declaration
With the foregoing recitals in mind and based thereon
declarant hereby declares:
1. The third level on the subject property, including any
open deck on the third level, shall not be used for any purpose
except that the portions of the third level enclosed under roof
may be used for storage purposes only.
2. Ail access to the third level rear yard deck shall be
prohibited for living purposes. Nothing herein is intended to
restrict such access for maintenance, repairs or during an
emergency such as fire.
3. Ail access to the third level storage area shall be
prohibited for living purposes. Nothing herein is intended to
restrict such access for storage, maintenance, repairs or during
an emergency such as fire.
4. All glazed openings which permit natural light and
ventillation into the space on the third level shall be removed
and the walls on the third level from which glazing has been
removed shall be resurfaced on the interior with dry wall and on
the exterior with wood siding compatible with the existing color
and texture of the exterior plaster. Access to the third level
shall be limited to a pull down ladder or similar apparatus
through a standard crawl space.
5. Following the recordation of this declaration and
completion of the changes Jn the third level of the residence on
the subject property referred to in paragraphs 1 through 4 above,
no further changes shall be made in the third leve] without the
express written consent of the City of Chula Vista. It is the
intent of this provision to insure the permanent maintenance of
the third level as provided for in this declaration unless a
majority of the City Council consents to a modification thereof.
6. This declaration shall be binding upon the declarant,
his heirs, successors, and assigns, and is intended to and shall
run with the land.
7. This declaration shall run in favor of and be
en£orceable by the City of Chu~a Vista and the owners of all
properties fronting on the 100 block of Murray Street or the 100
block of Halsey Street in the City of Chula Vista.
8. This declaration shall not be modified without the
express consent of the City of Chula Vista authorized by a
majority vote of the City Council of the City.
9. Any deed or other conveyan'ce transferring any interest
in the subject property shall contain a reference to this
declaration.
Executed at San Diego, California
this day of , 1988.
Joseph A. Raso, Declarant
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
IAPPLICANT'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:
1. List the names of all~ersons having a financial interest in the application.
List~he names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list
the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation
or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
3. if any person identified pursuant to {1) 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.
4. liave you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No )<' If yes, please indicate person(s) -
Person is defined as: "Any indiv!dual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association,
soc-~-E~"F club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receive~, 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."
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)
Signature of applicant/date ..
WPC 0701P ~Wy~7~ ~.~
A-110 Print or~Eype name of applicant
JUL
July 6, 1988
File: 0S-019
TO: George Krempl, Director of Planning
FROM: John P. Lippitt, Director of Public & Rech~eatio4~D%~_. W°rks~ '-"~_
Manuel Mollinedo, Director of Parks
SUBJECT: Report Regarding Formation of Proposed Open Space
District No. 18 - Rancho del Sur
Attached is a proposed report regarding the formation of the
proposed open space district no. 18 (Rancho del Cur). I would
like to request that this report be submitted to the Planning
Commission at the next available meeting.
CST:yc/rb
(A~MEMOS~DELSUR)
4. REPORT: Formation of proposed Open Space District No. 18 -
Rancho del Sur
July 6, 1988
File: OS-019
TO: George Krempl, Director of Planning s~~_
FROM: John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Work
Manuel Mollinedo, Director of Parks & Rec~ea 'o~__~.
SUBJECT: Report Regarding Formation of Proposed Open Space
District No. 18 - Rancho del Sur
Attached is a proposed report regarding the formation of the
proposed open space district no. 18 (Rancho del Sur). I would
like to request that this report be submitted to the Planning
Commission at the next available meeting.
CST:yc/rb
(A~MEMOS~DELSUR)
REPORT ON PROPOSED OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO. 18
A. Background:
On May 27, 1987 the Planning Commission, by a vote of 6-0,
recommended that the tentative map for Chula Vista Tract 87-
8 (Rancho del Sur) not be approved. On July 7, 1987 the
City Council approved the tentative map by Resolution No.
13111. Among the conditions of approval of the tentative
map was the requirement that the developer request formation
of an open space district to assure maintenance of open
space lots within the subdivision. The developer has
submitted such a request, indicating the proposed district
boundaries, the areas to be maintained and an estimate of
the annual cost of maintenance.
B. Recommendation:
That the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending
formation of proposed Open Space District No. 18 to the City
Council. A public hearing must be held before the City
Council before the district can be formed.
C. Discussion:
The boundary of the proposed open space district is the
boundary of Chula Vista Tract 87-8, except that Lot "K"
shall be excluded from the district, as shown on Exhibit
"A". The areas to be maintained by open space maintenance
contract consist of eight open space lots containing
approximately 32.4 acres of natural or landscaped open
space, landscaped medians and parkway in Medical Center
Drive and landscaped parkways along East Naples Street (see
Exhibit "B"). Additional features proposed to be maintained
by the Open Space district include:
1. Maintenance and ornamental lighting costs for entry
monumentation and decorative sidewalks at the
intersections of Medical Center Drive with Telegraph
Canyon Road and East Naples Street.
2. Stucco "Community Theme" walls.
- 2 -
The entry monumentation includes four concrete obelisks
approximately 10 feet tall, located at the four corners of
Medical Center Drive and East Naples Street. concrete walls
bearing the project name, located at the intersection of
Medical Center Drive and Telegraph Canyon Road, and a series
of small free standing columns (3 ft. tall) located along
the south side of Telegraph Canyon Road along the
subdivision frontage. Lighting costs for the entry
monumentation (estimated to be $780 per year) will be paid
from open space district funds in the same manner as
irrigation water is typically provided.
The decorative sidewalk is concrete sidewalk with a surface
treatment creating a different texture. The subject
sidewalks are located at the intersections of Medical Center
Drive with Telegraph Canyon Road and East Naples Street.
All other sidewalk will be standard finished concrete, and
will be maintained by the Public Works Department.
The stucco walls are "Community Theme Walls", located at the
rear of the parkways along the entry corridors to the
subdivision (East Naples Street and Medical Center Drive).
The above listed features are unique to this subdivision,
and are intended to provide a sense of identity to the
subdivision. Staff feels that it is appropriate to include
this work in the open space district because the facilities
primarily benefit the property owners.
The estimated annual cost of maintaining the open space is
$112,106.00 including administration costs incurred by the
City. The proposed district will contain 285 single family
residential lots, one multi-family residential lot
containing 200 apartment units and one lot that is expected
to be developed commercially. The proposed distribution of
assessments is shown in attachment "C". For purposes of
distributing assessments, a single family lot would be 1.0
assessment unit and an apartment would be 0.5 assessment
unit. This is the same relationship that was used in the
Hidden Vista Open Space District, which also contained
several different land uses. The estimated annual
assessment for a typical single family lot would be
approximately $291.18.
- 3 -
Lot "K" , which is a portion of the right-of-way of Old
Telegraph Canyon Road, contains so many utilities (sewer,
water, electric and telephone) that the only practical use
is to supplement parking for the adjacent businesses. This
lot will probably never be developable and therefore will
derive no benefit from open space maintenance. It is
recommended that lot "K" not be included in the district.
Lot 2 is located between Medical Center Drive and the
property to the east, which is owned by the Chula vista
School District. The lot is too narrow to be developed by
itself. Development of this lot will likely be in
conjunction with the adjacent property. It is recommended
that this property not be assessed until such time as it is
developed. At that time, the development should be reviewed
to determine if the overall development should be within the
district.
All open space lots conform to the criteria contained in
Section 17.08.020 of the Municipal Code. None of the lots
will be maintained by a homeowners' association. Said lots
will be granted to the City in conjunction with approval of
Subdivision Maps for the project.
CST:yc/ljr/a/rb
(A~REPORTS~OPNSPC)
EXHIBIT B
SUNBOW - PHASE I
ANNUAL MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION COST ESTIMATE
AREA COST MONTHLY
SF-AC SF/MTH MAINT. COST
PARKWAY AND MEDIAN 132,424 (3.0 AC) ,0221/S.F./MTH $2,927,00
LANDSCAPE
HYDROSEED 96,906 S,F, (2.20 AC) .0025/S,F./MTH $ 242.00
LANDSCAPE
UNDISTURBED 699,090 S,F. (16.0 AC) ,002/S.F./MTH $1,398,00
NATIVE LANDSCAPE
NATIVE-NATURALIZED 516,334 S.F. (11.0 AC) ,008/S.F,/MTH $4,131.00
LANDSCAPE
ANNUAL LANDSCAPE MAINTNENANCE AND $104,376.00
IRRIGATION COST (32.2 ACRES)
ANNUAL LANDSCAPE UTILITY COST $ 780.00
INTERSECTION MONUMENTATtON, EMBOSSED PAVING, $ 1,500.00
COMMUNITY THEME WALLS AND COLUMNS LUMP SUM
CONTINGENCY $ 250.00
ESTIMATED ANNUAL ADMINISTRATIVE COST $ 5,200.00
ESTIMATED TOTAL ANNUAL COST $112,106.00
EXHIBIT "C"
Estimated Annual Assessment
Assessment Assessment
Residential Unit Factor Units Per Unit Total
285 SFD 1.0 285 291.18 $82,988.00
200 Apt (Lot l) 0.5 100 291.18 29,118.00
Assessment Assessment Assessment Assessment
Commercial Unit Factor Units Per Unit Total
Lot 2 {2.55 acres) 0 0 $ 0 $ 0
385 $112,106
Annual Maintenance Cost $112,106 = $291.18 per unit per year
Number of Assessment Units 385
WPC 3580E