Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1989/04/26 Tape: 298 Side: 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, April 26, 1989 Public Services Buildin9 ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Carson, Commissioners Casillas, Fuller, Grasser, Shipe and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Cannon - with notification STAFF PRESENT: Principal Planner Lee, Associate Planner Griffin, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Assistant Planner Reid, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust and Deputy City Attorney Fritsch PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Carson and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chairman Carson reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None 2. PUBLIC HEARING: P-87-9 - REQUEST TO MODIFY SUNBOW PRECISE PLAN TO INCREASE ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA FROM 2,550 SQUARE FEET OR 45% ON 12 LOTS WITHIN CHULA VISTA TRACT 87-8, UNIT NO. 3 - THE FIELDSTONE COMPANY Commissioner Fuller stated that she had a potential conflict of interest and left the dais and the Chambers. Associate Planner Griffin stated that the project, Unit 3 of the Sunbow Development, is presently under construction and consists of 54 single-family lots located at the southwest corner of East Naples Street and Medical Center Drive surrounding the existing Fox Hill Development. The lots range in size from approximately 6,400 square feet to ll,900 square feet with an average lot size of 6,500 square feet. In addition to other restrictions adopted as part of the original development package, the standards for Unit 3 call for a maximum floor area of 2,550 square feet or 45 percent of the lot area. MINUTES -2- April 26, 1989 Fieldstone has asked for relief from a condition placed on the tentative map when it was first adopted which limits 19 of the lots (35 percent of total) to single-story development. Fieldstone maintains, and staff concurs, that this represents a hardship in terms of providing a reasonable unit mix of single-story and two-story dwellings comparable to other developments. Fieldstone is requesting that 12 alternate lots (other than those 19) be permitted to increase floor area percentage to 55 percent so two-story dwellings can be accommodated to make up for the restriction on the 19 lots. The two-story models are 2,700 square feet and 2,950 square feet. Based on the size of those 19 lots, however, only eight could have accommodated the proposed two-story model; therefore, staff suggests that the hardship be limited to eight lots. Two other lots in the development are large enough to accommodate two-story dwellings although they were planned for single-story. Staff suggested these be subtracted from the eight as well resulting in six lots being adjusted on the development standards. Unfortunately one of those larger lots is the model complex, essentially completed as a single-story dwelling and would not be feasible as a two-story. Lot 20 (part of the 12-lot request) would have problems with setbacks if it were limited to single-stow. Staff now suggests that the recommendation of the staff report be changed to include Lot 20 at a floor area of 54 percent. That makes a total of seven lots for adjustment. With that amendment to the recommendations, staff recommends approval. Commissioner Casillas referred to the staff discussion in Agenda Item 3 on what basis "hardship" is determined. The argument that a hardship is involved is difficult to understand. Why was this not foreseen when the development plan was put in place? The item has returned without apparent justification to meet the "hardship" criteria outlined in Agenda Item 3. Mr. Griffin pointed out that this case involves a modification while the discussion referred to in Item 3 is a variance. The condition was placed on the map at the very final stage of approval at the Council level. The process had been completed when the single-story restriction was imposed. The developer would have been obliged to redesign the map, perhaps reducing the size of 19 lots and increasing that of the alternative lots to accommodate larger dwellings and the expense and time would have been prohibitive. That is the basis of staff's concurrence in the "hardship" claim. Commissioner Casillas maintained that an inconsistency between the two items was involved since the discussion included floor area ratios, the available square footage area of land and what would be allowable to build there. Mr. Griffin pointed out that the distinction in this particular case, was that the project was coming in as a total package including architectural details, development standards other than the floor area maximum, common open space and was to be developed as a whole. On the other hand, the FAR was specifically adopted to address retrofit situations such as an addition to a dwellinq or development of a vacant lot which might be inconsistent with the established bulk and the expectations of neighbors already in residence. Con~nissioner Casillas asked when the entire subdivision was approved and was informed that the Planning Commission had denied the map and had been overruled by City Council in June, 1987. MINUTES -3-... April 26, 1989 This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. John Barone, 5465 Morehouse Drive, San Diego, Fieldstone Company, stated that in the interest of time they would make an organized presentation. Mr. Hogan would accompany him. Mr. Barone said they were requesting a modification of the precise plan to permit the construction of two-story homes on seven of the lots in the 54-1ot subdivision. Nineteen of the homes, or 35 percent, would be limited to single-story along the boundary of Fox Hill. Originally there were 12 lots on which two-story homes could not be constructed, however, the request is limited to 7. With the modification, 25 percent of the homes would be single-story; without modification, nearly 60 percent would he single-story. Mr. Barone said they were in agreement with staff's position regarding the FAR and believe it is most appropriate for existing single-family neighborhoods and are requesting only some flexibility for seven of these lots to obtain a more reasonable mix in the homes. The increase in the number of two-story homes would enhance the subdivision, provide more variety, better street scene and better setbacks because of the smaller footprint. The homes about to be offered in both Buie and Woodcrest have a square footage range very comparable to the homes to be developed in Unit 3. These homes are not out of scale with the bulk of the neighborhood but are similar to the others. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Tugenberg/Shipe) Fuller out (5-0) to recommend that City Council approve the following amendment to the Sunbow Precise Plan, P-87-9, for Planning Area 3. Maximum Building Area: 2,500 square feet or 45% of the lot area, whichever is greater: except that lots 20 (54%}, 22 (50%), 23 (50%), 43 (51%), 44 (52%), 49 149%} and b~ 1'4~%) shall be permitted the maximum area as noted. Commissioner Fuller returned to the Chambers and the dais. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-89-27 REQUEST TO INCREASE F.A.R. FROM 45 PERCENT TO 55 PERCENT AND TO DECREASE REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 20 FEET TO 15 FEET AT 740 BAYLOR AVENUE - JOSEPH PROPATI Associate Planner Griffin reported that the property is zoned P-C and is located in the Bonita Long Canyon Estates Unit ! Development on Baylor Avenue. The site is adjacent to single-family dwellings to the north, east and south and to Bonita Vista High School to the west. The requested deviations are for the purpose of adding two 2-story additions, one on the rear and one on the side of the home at 740 Baylor Avenue. The total floor area to be added is 575 square feet. The existing dwelling is part of a relatively new project which extends from this dwelling to the north and which contains an existing floor area of 2,652 square feet which is at the .45 Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) applied to this property along with all of the other basic R-1 standards. The addition would bring that total to .55 F.A.R., a lO percent increase. MINUTES -4- April 26, 1989 Staff is unable to find a particular hardship related to this property for either request. The lot (5,880 square feet) is not abnormally small in relation to the neighboring lots. The 2,652 square feet is considered reasonable for a single-family dwelling and, as was noted, the F.A.R. was established as a ratio rather than a set figure to take into account the fact that lot sizes would vary and would relate the bulk of the dwelling to the size of the lot. Similarly, there is no apparent hardship regarding the rear yard setback on the second level regardless of whether or not the issue of a F.A.R. increase is included. Staff therefore recommends the Commission deny the variance request based on the findings contained in the staff re~ort. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Alan Weis, 4921 College Garden, representing the homeowner, stated that when the homeowner purchased this property, he was not informed that he could not add to the dwelling as his family needs grew. Now, he has six children in school and needs more space including a large family room, dining room and another bedroom. Otherwise, he may be forced to move from the area - that is certainly a hardship. The lot is a 5,800 square foot lot and the average size in the subdivision is well-over 6,000 square feet. The rear of the lot is not shown but it is a very steep and dramatic drop-off to the lot in back. There is no encroachment on anyone in the back since the difference in the elevation is at least 30 feet from the top of his rear lot to the base of the lot below. Therefore, compromising the rear setback by 10 feet has no impact whatsoever as far as light, air, view and living convenience are concerned. The lot itself is comparable to five adjacent lots out of the entire tract of approximately 90 houses. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MS (Tugenberg/Shipe) to deny the request for Variance ZAV-89-27. Assistant Planner Griffin said he would be remiss if he did not make it part of the record that a letter in opposition to the variance request had been received from the residents at 739 Baylor Avenue. Commissioner Tugenberg stated that this particular property is not unique in the topography of the land directly behind it. Most of the houses on Baylor drop off onto the tract of the High School and he wished to draw the attention of Mr. Weis to the fact that 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 is not to grant any special privilege or concession not enjoyed by other properties in the same zone or vicinity. The motion to deny Variance ZAV-89-27 passed unanimously (6-0). 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-89-19 - APPEAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION DENYING PROPOSED TWO-STORY ADDITION WHICH DOES NOT MEET R-1 REQUIREMENTS FOR ATTACHING AT LEAST 50 PERCENT OF THE COMMON WALL TO THE MAIN BUILDING - MRS. DOROTHY DOWDLE, 730 SECOND AVENUE MINUTES -5- A~ril 26, 1989 Commissioner Fuller stated that she had a potential conflict of interest and left the dais and the Chambers. &ssistant Planner Reid remarked that the home of Mrs. Dowdle, located at 730 Second Avenue, was a one-story, 2,199 square foot, Spanish-Colonial home. A two-story addition has been proposed totaling 650 square feet. The first-floor addition would be a bathroom and the second-floor addition a bedroom and bath. Staff's concern relates to the Municipal Code stipulation that requires all portions of dwellings used for living or sleeping purposes be attached by common walls. Ms. Reid displayed slides showing the existing dwelling which features wood-frame, recessed casement windows in the front, a heavy front door with large strap hinges and cross-gabled red tile roof. The proposed addition would feature Spanish eclectic windows which are not recessed and is inconsistent with the existing style. This home is listed on the Historical Resources Inventory in Chula Vista for its architecture and it was the contention of the applicant that the two-story addition would continue the integrity of the existing home. The Planning Department is of the opinion that the integrity is not preserved since the style is architecturally different. The applicant has contended that because of the surrounding trees the second story addition would appear to be connected to the existing structure. The Department, however, is of the opinion that the intent of the Ordinance is to forestall separate living quarters from existing within the same dwelling structure. The two-story addition does include a bedroom and bath separated by a 4-foot hallway and the common wall is not connected sufficiently to prevent separate living quarters at some future time. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Stephen H. Kirby, 3945 Camino del Rio South, San Diego, representing Mrs. Dowdle, said there were several misconceptions on the part of staff regarding what was termed the "integrity of the existing structure." The applicant was considering the structural integrity engineeringwise since the house is old. The concern with the different architectural styles, eclectic versus colonial, is understood and there would be no objection to conforming more to the colonial style. The common-wall stipulation had been researched and it was their understanding that they had complied with the literal intent of that section of the Municipal Code. Mr. Kirby contended that the statement in the staff report, "which does not meet R-1 requirements for attaching at least 50% of the common wall to the main building" is an interpretation on the part of staff and not a requirement. The actual wording of the Ordinance does not bring forward any "amount of attachment"; therefore, the circumstances were considered unique enough to justify the appeal. He considers that the attachment is sufficient for the "literal interpretation" and that the spirit and intent of the Ordinance requirement has been met. They are looking to the Commission for relief from the Zoning Administrator's "interpretation and stringent application of the 50 percent requirement. Commissioner Carson asked why such a small space was left? The Commissioner said that the impression that crossed her mind was that there might be a conversion sometime in the future. The small hallway makes it a great deal MINUTES -6- April 26, 1989 more possible. Mr. Kirby said that had been Mrs. Dowdle's wishes and that any closer proximity might severely affect the actual engineering structural integrity of the older structure. He pointed out that a doorway placed in the common wall would serve the same purpose. Commissioner Tugenberg asked how many bedrooms now existed. The reply was two. Steve Letender, 960 Sherman Street, San Diego, 92110, representing the contractor, Sears, seconded Mr. Kirby's contention that the 50 percent attachment is staff's interpretation not that of the Municipal Code. A conversion could be accomplished whether there is a hallway or it is 100 percent attached. He asked if Mrs. Dowdle were to be penalized for what may happen later when she sells the house. Mr. Kirby said he is aware that there are mechanisms that zoning enforcement has for monitoring guest homes, second-family units and so forth and they would have no objection to having a relevant condition of approval for this particular site plan. Barbara Gilman, 733 Second Avenue, Chula Vista, who lives across from the house, spoke in opposition on the basis that the 4-foot corridor is in no way a common wall. The only way to keep the integrity of the design is to work with the design itself instead of ignoring it. The house would he ruined as proposed. She said she was in favor of putting an addition on the house but not in the fashion proposed. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tugenberg commented that 20 years down the line with another owner there would be no way to control this from being turned into either a granny flat or rental property. ~qSUC (Tugenberg/Grasser) 5-0, Fuller out, that based on the analysis contained in Section D of the staff report, to deny PCM-89-19. Commissioner Fuller returned to the Chambers and the dais at 8:51 p.m. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-89-31 REQUEST TO ALLOW FOR A 6-FOOT HIGH WALL TO BE LOCATED IN THE FRONT SETBACK AREA AT 9 "L" STREET - W. H. BARTON Principal Planner Lee stated that the applicant's house is located on a busy collector street just west of the major intersection at Hilltop and "L" Street. On July 6, 1988, Mr. Barton, the applicant, wrote to City Council requesting an amendment to the Municipal Code to allow 6-foot high walls in front setback areas for homes fronting on thoroughfare roads. Council referred the matter to staff which returned with a report on December 6, 1988. The report confirmed that the house was located in an extremely noisy area with an inside decibel reading of 61 dBA. The prima~¥ noise source was MINUTES -7- April 26, 1989 indicated as traffic. Staff cited concerns about a proposed Code amendment which would permit construction of 6-foot high walls in the front setback area - literally at the sidewalk. Staff observed that installation of dual-glazed windows and insulation to soundproof the house would be approximately the same cost as construction of a wall and would have a greater chance of successful noise control. Council directed that a draft ordinance be prepared which was reviewed on April 4, 1989. The ordinance was referred back for further study. Council also directed that a variance for Mr. Barton's property be considered rather than require him to wait until refinement of the ordinance. Mr. Lee noted that the applicant has re-evaluated his plan and has created a 6-foot area between the wall and the sidewalk for landscaping purposes and has cut the corner of the wall to provide additional siqht visibility for the driveway. However, staff is unable to find any hardship unique to this particular property which would justify the granting of a variance. The applicant contends that since the house has recently been restuccoed, adding the insulation would be a problem. The insulation option, however, had been stated prior to the restuccoing. Staff recommends denial of the variance request; but has included conditions relating to design, landscaping and maintenance (page 3 of the staff report) in case the Commission wishes to approve the request. Commissioner Carson questioned the indicated drop in the number of cars in 1978. Mr. Lee confirmed that Engineering records indicated there had been an actual decrease although the cause is unknown. Commissioner Tugenberg commented that all the "L" Street houses shared this noise problem cited by the applicant as a "hardship." He asked if any criteria regarding construction of such walls had been developed to date. Mr. Lee replied negatively and added that staff had concerns reqarding the setbacks and landscaping needs; since, unlike construction in new community areas wherein a suitable wall could be designed and installed for the entire area, the timing, location, design and construction of walls for individual owners was difficult to administer. A discussion of the advantages of insulation versus the deterrent effect of a noise wall on a one- and two-story house ensued. Commissioner Tugenberg said his son had a 6-foot wall which seemed to mitigate the noise on the first floor, but the second floor was unaffected. Principal Planner Lee said that in this instance the wall is not the answer; measures can be taken to insulate the house properly and substantially reduce the amount of noise. He noted that staff had included a study which indicated that the shielding effect of a wall resulted in only a 6 or 7 dBA loss. Commissioner Fuller noted that a home west of "L" Street has a 6-foot hedge along the front bordering the sidewalk and that another home further west has a very high wall (part of which is a retaining wall) that wraps around the house to the front and is solid. In her opinion, if she were living on "L" Street, she would want to do everything possible to insulate a house against the noise. Because increasing traffic noise problems face residents, MINUTES -8- April 26, 19~9 particularly in the older sections of the City where streets have been widened and the front yard diminished, she does not oppose the construction of nice-looking, architecturally well-planned walls as sound barriers even if some of the openness in the front yard areas (advocated by the City) is lost. In reply to Commissioner Fuller's question, Principal Planner Lee said that no complaints against the proposed wall have been filed by the neighbors; and that maintenance agreements with private homeowners (as proposed in the staff report) are presently non-existent. Commissioner Casillas said he was not in favor of 6-foot walls from an aesthetic standpoint and did not feel they should be allowed. He referenced a recently constructed wall on Paseo del Rey and Bajo on the front and side setbacks which is visually unsightly and fears such construction might occur on "L" Street. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. N. H. Barton, 9 "L" Street, Chula Vista, the applicant, contended that the Municipal Code guarantees him an environment free of noise and sets a standard for noise levels. The noise level on "L" Street, a residential street in the middle of the City, is 74 dBA which exceeds that of a freeway. The house is located 100 feet from a stop-and-go intersection. The 35 mph speed limit and the dip at Hilltop and "L" create a lot of extra noise. A study made in 1974 averaged the decibel level at 65 dBA measured over a 24-hour period. The onus is not on him but on the City to allow him to do whatever he chooses to minimize the noise impact; he chooses a wall. Council has rejected staff's opinion three times already and has directed staff to draft an ordinance to change the Municipal Code to allow the owner to proceed at the owner's expense. The Arizona study submitted by staff concerns a 4-inch masonry fence and a reduction of about 6-8 dBA. The California Transportation Department, however, states that a 6-inch cinder block wall, 6-foot high, properly located, would achieve an average decrease of 27 dBA on a single-story building. The location chosen, 6-feet from the sidewalk, is as far from the sidewalk as he can get in order to cover the house. His biggest concern is health and welfare which will be discussed in the forthcoming, referenced ordinance. Mr. Barton said he could enumerate other houses having 6-foot fences, even one on "G" Street with a ?-foot fence which is 1-foot, 7-inches from the sidewalk. He has been told by staff that he cannot cite these other locations as a precedent, however, staff also says in the Commission's information packet that to allow his variance request will establish a precedent. Mr. Barton continued that Council wanted him to move on w~--~-~--his project before his departure on June 13 for the Middle East on a 1-year tour. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tugenberg asked if the Commission were to allow the variance, could it be appealed and if so, by whom. Mr. Lee replied that the item had been dual-noticed at Council's request and would proceed to them automatically on May 16. The Commissioner commented that it is his opinion that Mr. Barton deserves some kind of definitive answer and perhaps Commission approval of the request might move the item "off dead center." MINUTES -9- April 26, 1989 MSC (Tugenberg/Fuller) Casillas and Shipe = no, (4-2) that based on the Alternate Findings (page 4) contained in the staff report to approve the variance request subject to the conditions outlined in Section E. OTHER BUSINESS None. DIRECTOR'S REPORT None. COMMISSION COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:20 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of May lO, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers Ruth M. Smith, Secreta[v Planning Commission WPC 6282P