Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1988/07/27 Tape #: 292 Side 2: 0-872 MINUTES City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, July 27, 1988 - 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Carson, Commissioners Fuller, Grasser Cannon and Casillas COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Tugenberg and Shipe (with notification) STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Associate Planner Griffin, Deputy City Attorney Fritsch, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, Director of Building and Housing Larsen APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Fuller/Casillas) Cannon abstained, to approve the minutes of June 22, 1988 with a correction made on page 5 to indicate that Grasser seconded the motions instead of Green. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-88-23M REQUEST TO EXPAND A MINIWAREHOUSE FACILITY LOCATED AT 340 NAPLES STREET - NAPLES STREET INVESTORS, INC. Principal Planner Lee requested a continuation of this item to the meeting of August 10, 1988 in order that the Montgomery Planning Committee might consider it at the meeting of August 3, 1988. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-88-20 - REQUEST TO REDUCE SIDEYARD SETBACKS AND INCREASE HEIGHT OF FENCING IN FRONT YARD SETBACK ON LOT 158 OF RANCHO ROBINHOOD lll SUBDIVISION - DENNIS E. WHITE Principal Planner Lee said that the lot is 16,700 square feet and is one of six lots subject to the restrictive sideyard requirements which call for 25-foot maximum setback on each side. The applicant is requesting reduction Planning Commission -2- July 27, 1988 in the sideyard setback to 23 feet on the northerly property line, to 15 feet on the southerly property line and to increase the fence height from 3-1/2 feet to 5 feet in the front to accommodate the necessary fencing to enclose the pool. There are over 100 lots that have a minimum of between 18 feet and 10 feet setback on one side. The restrictions applied to this lot are because it is one of the six "custom panhandle" lots in the project. There are, however, larger custom lots which front upon a public street which are subject to the less restrictive standard of 18 feet/7 feet. The setbacks are extremely severe. The subject lot is also smaller than most of the typical lots and the property drops about 30 feet to the west. A slope bank is proposed along the easterly side of the property. Planner Lee said that a petition had been submitted by 13 residents of the immediate area requesting denial of the variance and seeking the City's assistance in limiting the building height to one story. Other two-story houses exist in the immediate neighborhood and the Zoning Regulations permit single-family dwellings of 2-1/2 stories, up to 28 feet in height, as a matter of right. Staff is recommending approval of the variance. In response to questions, Principal Planner Lee indicated that the City is not aware of any deed restrictions requiring these setbacks. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Dick Kau, 3404 Bonita Road, Chula Vista, 92010, representing adjacent home owners and, in particular, Mr. and Mrs. Takashima at 366 Surrey Drive, Chula Vista, noted that the land had been purchased knowing the restrictions within the CC&Rs and the setbacks required. The neighbors are of the opinion that the applicant should abide by the CC&Rs which stipulate that two-story houses are permitted but only if there is no interference with the views or enhancement of the project. The planned location would adversely affect Mr. and Mrs. Takashima's view of the ocean. Mr. Kau suggested a limitation of the house to a single-story or an exchange of location between the house and the pool as a solution, noting that the proposed pool location was 30 feet lower in elevation than that of the house. Commissioner Cannon pointed out that it was not in the purview of the Planning Commission to enforce any CC&Rs affecting the property and that such a matter should be taken up with the Homeowners' Association. Dennis White, 21 Vista Way, Chula Vista, the applicant, said he had attempted to purchase property to relocate the position of the house to minimize blockage and had been unable to do so; the garage location had been chosen also to minimize blockage of the view. Mr. White pointed out that the pad had been lowered with the idea of causing as little obstruction as possible. He had spoken to Mr. Takashima after the petition was signed. He had also tried to talk to McMillin Corporation in an attempt to purchase additional land in order to move the house over but it could not be done. Planning Commission -3- July 27, 1988 No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cannon asked to review the slide depicting the footprint of the house and asked staff to indicate the setbacks in question. He said he could not see how denial would accomplish what the neighbors wanted; therefore, from his standpoint he could see no reasons not to grant the variance to allow those small portions to be on the lot. Mr. Lee commented that if the Commission desired, the encroachment could be limited to a single level. Commissioner Cannon said that would not be very fair to the homeowner as the vast majority of the other homes were two stories in height. If there is a protection from blocking views in the CC&Rs, it can be enforced but normally there isn't for air and light. Principal Planner Lee commented that the applicant had offered to retain the garage at one-story and that condition could be drafted into the approval. MSUC (Cannon/Fuller) 5-0, that based on findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report, to approve the request, ZAV-88-20, to reduce the sideyard setbacks from 25 feet to 15 feet on southerly property line, 25 feet to 23 feet on northerly property line and to increase fence height from 3-1/2 feet to 5 feet in the front property line subject to condition "a". 3. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-88-19 REQUEST TO RETAIN EXISTING LOT COVERAGE 46.2% AT 165 MURRAY STREET - J. ANTHONY RASO Principal Planner Lee stated that the request was to retain the existing lot coverage at 46.2 percent for the dwelling at 165 Murray Street instead of reducing it to 40 percent as called for in the Municipal Code. The staff report outlined the long history of the project since 1986. A similar request for variance was filed in 1987 and denied by the Planning Commission but approved by Council subject to certain conditions to be completed within 45 days. At the end of that time period, the variance was declared null and void and it was stipulated that the lot coverage be reduced to 40 percent. Mr. Raso filed claim for damages against the City and a series of time extensions were granted. The applicant has offered to record deed restrictions on the property, that would run with the land and be enforceable by not only the City but by the owner of any property on the 100 blocks of Murray or Halsey Streets. These restrictions would prohibit use of the third level and deck for any purpose but storage; remove and close all third level window openings; remove existing internal stairway to the third level and reduce the opening between the third floor and deck to 22 inches by 36 inches. Staff is unable to make the findings for the variance and continues to recommend denial. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Jerry Dawson, 7851 Mission Center Court, San Diego, CA 92013, Attorney for Mr. Raso, indicated that this was not a regular variance case; the circumstances arose through a design approved by the City, and participation by City Plannin9 Commission -4- July 27, 1988 employees and the Building and Housing Department until the building was practically completed. Over the years, Mr. Raso had eliminated substantial coverage; from 61 percent to 46 percent. At the time the building permit was issued, 50,000 square feet could be built. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Policy was not in effect. A great deal of the confusion has been based on the mistaken belief that the third level of the house constitutes a third-story. In fact, it is a 1/2 story which is perfectly legal per Section 19.04.280. The ordinance permits a 1-1/2 story residence in the R-1 zone. All that is needed to qualify for a half-story is that exterior walls on the opposite side of the building not exceed 4 feet in height. There is no exterior wall on the third level of the front of the Raso house and, therefore, the height of the front wall is zero. The rear wall is a parapet wall surrounding the deck which is less than 4 feet high. Therefore, Mr. Raso is entitled to use the 1/2 story. The use of the third story appears to be the area over which the neighbors have the most concern. Mr. Raso has lowered the roof from 42 feet to 35 feet but it is not fair to ask him to lower it further. Mr. Dawson said there is a problem in which the City participated from the outset. As the variance has twice been granted by Council, it could be granted. He urged the Commission to resolve the problem. Helen Wadsworth, 175 Murray Street, Chula Vista, said she also was representing Lloyd and Addie Welker of 168 Murray Street who were on vacation. She requested the variance be denied because when she purchased her house in 1963, there was a deed of conformance that ran until the year 2000 wherein no major changes could be made to the houses. She had wanted a second story but was told it was not permitted by the deed and she asked how things could be different at this time. She inquired what would happen if the Raso house were sold to another party and averred that Mr. Raso had caused a lot of damage to others on the cul-de-sac. Lois Myers, 126 Halsey Street, Chula Vista, said she lived directly behind the Raso structure which she claimed is in violation of the City Zoning Code. Ms. Myers specified that there are two owners of the property as of the 1986 City records. She maintained that Mr. Raso had discussed the view of the bay he would have and added that the location of the hot tub was another indication that he had planned to use the third floor for other than storage. Ms. Myers asked how many more times the neighbors would have to appear in opposition to the house before the matter is resolved. She stated that from her location the house was like a huge barn and that the matter was not fair to the neighbors. The house is not wanted and all property owners are supposed to be equal. Mr. Dawson returned to the lectern to state that the opposition heard tonight was basically for removal of the house. That would not happen. The worst that could happen would be removal of 6 percent of the house somewhere. Then the third level would remain available for use. What is being offered the neighbors would be of benefit to them. The third level would be sealed off with only a crawl space left and a deed recorded which would be a restriction enforceable by neighbors and the City of record. That would be a positive benefit to the neighbors. Planning Commission -5- July 27, 1988 Ms. Wadsworth asked if the hot tub and plumbing in the third floor were dismantled as such plumbing did not coincide with her idea of attic storage facilities. Principal Planner Lee replied that it was his understanding that the plumbing would be removed. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. In reply to Commissioner Fuller, Director Krempl noted that lowering the roof had been a condition of the variance which had expired. The City was not in a position to enforce that. Mr. Raso is in violation of the lot coverage and must either get a variance and comply with the conditions of that variance or he would have to bring the lot coverage into conformance with the Code. Since he has chosen not to comply with the conditions, then the City could move against him with respect to the lot coverage. In response to Commissioner Fuller, Director Krempl noted that the floor area covering the lot amounts to 46 percent and that even if Mr. Raso took the 6% off someplace, he would still have the height of the building as it now exists. Staff, however, does not concur with the assessment that the upper level does not constitute a third story. Staff thinks it does. What Mr. Raso is offering is a prohibition on the use of the deck. The use of the deck is legal under the Code and that would be something that would be offered in exchange for the variance which it is not currently under the City's aegis to regulate. Commissioner Cannon said what was in front of the Commission was a variance and a variance requires certain findings. The findings outlined in the staff report could not be made. The "hardship" on the property was caused by the applicant. This item has been before the Commission five or six times, and he (Commissioner Cannon) keeps going back to the same position he has been in from the very beginning. The findings necessary to grant a variance are not there. Commissioner Casillas stated that the applicant appears to have brought a lot of this on himself. He is unable to believe that Mr. Raso could proceed through the design of this construction and not be aware of what the requirements were in terms of the City. It appears as though he might have had an approved plan and then it just "went haywire." The Commissioner said he was prepared to vote against the variance. MSUC (Cannon/Casillas) 5-0, to deny the request for a variance. 4. REPORT: FORMATION OF PROPOSED OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO. 18 - RANCHO DEL SUR Senior Civil Engineer Daoust stated that on July 7, 1987 the City Council approved the tentative map for Rancho del Sur with the condition that the developer request formation of an open space district to ensure maintenance of open space lots within the subdivision. The developer has indicated the district boundaries which coincide with those of the subdivision map (Chula Vista Tract 87-8), except for Lot "K", and provided a cost estimate of $298.18/year or $24.26/month. Mr. Daoust specified that the areas to be maintained consisted of eight open space lots containing approximately 32.4 Planning Commission -6- July 27, 1988 acres of natural or landscaped open space, landscaped medians and parkway in Medical Center Drive and landscaped parkways along East Naples Street. Additional features include the maintenance and ornamental lighting costs related to the intersections of Medical Center Drive with Telegraph Canyon Road and East Naples Street. Aso included are the stucco "community theme" walls at the rear of the parkways along the entry corridors to the subdivision. The cost of these features will be apportioned among the property owners. Lot "K" which is excluded from the district is a portion of the right-of-way of Old Telegraph Canyon Road and will probably never be developable. Lot 2 is also considered too narrow to be developed by itself and its use will be associated with the land next to it. Staff requests the Commission to recommend approval of formation of the proposed Open Space District No. 18. In response to Commissioner Fuller's inquiries about the possible future of the two pieces of land exempted from the District, Mr. Daoust noted that at one time it was anticipated that Lot "K" would become a parking lot for the adjacent land, and there was still a possibility that might happen. Lot 2 is a left-over piece of development which will probably be combined with the adjacent land under other ownership. Director Krempl added that there are no immediate plans for this land but eventually there will be a long-term use. MSUC (Cannon/Grasser) 5-0, to recommend Council approve formation of Open Space District No. 18. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: MSUC (Casillas/Fuller) 5-0, to re-elect Joanne Carson as Chair for another year. MSUC (Casillas/Fuller) to re-elect Bob Tugenberg as Vice Chair for another year. DIRECTOR REPORT: None COMMISSION COMMENTS: None ADJOURNMENT AT 8:02 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of August 10, 1988 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Ruth M. Smith, Secretary Planning Commission WPC 5426P