Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1987/08/26 Tape No.: 282 Side 2:0-978 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, August 26, 1987 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Carson,C~mmissioners Fuller, Grasser, Green, and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Cannon and Shipe STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Deputy City Attorney Moore, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, Associate Planner Griffin, Senior Community Development Specialist Buchan, Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman, Principal Community Development Specialist Putnam, Community Development Specialist Davies and Traffic Engineer Glass PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Shipe 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Fuller/Tugenberg) to approve the minutes of the meeting of June 10, June 24, July 8 and July 22, 1987 with a correction to the minutes of July 8 to show Commissioner Grasser as absent with notification. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None 1. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-88-2 REQUEST TO RETAIN EXISTING LOT COVERAGE AT 46.2 PERCENT FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AT 165 MURRAY STREET - JOSEPH A. RASO Principal Planner Lee reviewed the history of events starting with the stop-order issued on the house at 165 Murray Street in February of 1986 basically because the house contained a t~ird story some 43 feet in height, exceeded the lot coverage which was then at 40 percent allowance and had various discrepancies noted on the site. A month later, the applicant filed a variance to increase lot coverage from 61 percent (main structure and Planning Commission -2- August 26, 1987 accessory building included) and also requested permission to keep the third floor. That variance was denied by both the Planning Commission and the City Council; however, the Council indicated a willingness to work with the applicant on a redesign through the Design Review Committee. In June, 1986, the variance was reconsidered and denied by the Planning Commission and Council. Council denied the variance as filed but approved it for 46 percent lot coverage subject to several conditions including a maximum height of 30 feet, a requirement for Design Review approval and possibly City participation in the design. In August, 1986, Council decided not to proceed with the redesign (part of that involved wishes of the applicant). They revoked their previous variance action and denied the lot coverage variance. The applicant was directed to lower the building from 43 feet to 35 as depicted in the original plans), remove the accessory shed, remove a roof area over the pool so that he would comply with the maximum 40 percent lot coverage, and to remove stair access to the third floor. In September, Council indicated that all work was to be completed within 120 days and the stop-work order was lifted. That gave the applicant until January, 1987 to complete the work; however, in February, Council granted an additional 60-day extension. Later that month, the applicant informed the Building Department that it was, in his opinion, impractical to open up the area over the pool. In addition, he indicated that he had acquired adjacent lot area which would allow him to comply with the 40 percent lot coverage. In March, the Planning staff notified the applicant that the lot expansion was not acceptable for several reasons. The adjacent properties would have had illegal floor area ratios (FARs) under that type of transfer, plus the lot configuration was simply not conducive to an acceptable lot design. In April 1987, the Council directed staff to have an engineering analysis done on both the feasibility and the cost of modifying the dwelling. In July, Council reviewed that analysis prepared by a private structural engineer. There were three alternatives presented with costs varying from $10,000 to approximately $30,000. They deferred action on the lot coverage at that time, however, allowing the applicant to reapply for the variance before the Commission but directed the applicant to comply with the other requirements listed by the Building Department. Using the overhead projector, Principal Planner Lee, indicated the lot, nearly 9,000 square feet in area, located at the east end of Murray Street cul-de-sac within an R-1 area. The expanded home 35 feet in height now, over 8,000 square feet in area, and covers a little over 46 percent of the lot. Since construction started on this house, the R-1 District Standards have been revised limiting single-family construction to a floor area ratio. That ratio is .45, which means a typical 8,000 square foot lot multiplied by .45 equates to a permissible square footage of 3,600 square feet. Previous lot coverage controls did not address the question of bulk; in other words, a second floor added to a house of the same 40 percent footprint would equate to 6,400 square feet of building area, because the only question addressed in the ordinance was one of lot coverage and not building bulk. Planning Commission -3- August 26, 1987 The house in question is being evaluated based on the 40 percent lot coverage since that was in effect when construction began. The staff report outlines the circumstances and findings required to approve a variance; including hardship on the property by virtue of size, location, design or topographic features which are not consistent with similarly zoned lots in the area. Staff's conclusion is that there is nothing unique about the subject property to warrant a variance. In addition, the applicant was made aware of the Council's decision for denial nearly a year ago which afforded him ample time to comply; staff recommends denial. Planner Lee indicated an additional petition had been received which was signed by 34 residents in the immediate vicinity who indicated opposition to the variance and requested compliance with the City's 40 percent lot coverage requirement. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Helen J. Wadsworth, 175 Murray Street, 92010, reported that on page 3, of the staff report in the paragraph headed "Proposed Request", the third sentence reading "...the 30-foot high..." should be corrected to "35-foot high". She stated that she was opposed to the variance. Planner Lee replied that the change had been noted. Joe Raso, 165 Murray Street, owner of the home, stated he was present at the request of the City Council, and indicated his availability for questioning. Kitty Raso, 155 Murray Street, asked for an explanation of why it was necessary to close off a particular "window" on the first floor; expressed confusion between the relationship of the window area with lot variance, height, width or footage. Planner Lee replied he was not aware of anything on the first floor that was a Planning issue and suggested Mrs. Raso contact the Building Department as they had been inspecting the building regarding structural requirements. Joe Raso, 165 Murray St., stated he had anticipated the Planning Commission would be asking him questions. He said that the statement made by Planning staff that he had completed the house was erroneous. On August 5, 1986, Council had instructed him to complete the house to a certain point because of the neighbors and had ordered him to remove the roof through the living room down to the swimming pool. At a meeting on September 2, 1986 wi th Gene Asmus, he had protested saying there was no way "to put this hole through the house". Mr. Asmus had replied that he should get to work on the house since the clock was running and he had a time limit. Mr. Raso maintained that he had done everything that City Council had ordered with the exception of putting the hole through the house which even the engineer hired by the City had recommended against. Mr. Raso emphasized that he was present because the City Council asked him to come; he had done everything Council said and no more. He has not completed the house which is just an empty shell on the inside; that Council felt very concerned that the outside be landscaped, etc., so that the neighbors did not have to live in a construction zone; a lot of the statements in the report are Planning Commission -4- August 26, 1987 erroneous; however, he will make certain he has that straightened out by the Council meeting. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Green/Fuller) to deny the request for a variance. Commissioner Tugenberg interposed that he did not think the vote was sufficient; that the "monstrosity on Murray Street showed utter contempt and disrespect for the community in which that house is placed; and the applicant has shown complete arrogance dealing with the City." He moved that the Commission recommend to the City Council that they advise the applicant to become in compliance within 30 days or to be cited." Commissioner Fuller asked for an explanation of the meaning of "cited". Deputy City Attorney Moore said that the Zoning Enforcement Officer would go to the premises and see if there are any violations against the Municipal Code. If any were found he would report that to the City Attorney's Office and, at that time, criminal action could be filed against the person who was violating the Municipal Code. Commissioner Fuller said she might agree with the intent of Commissioner Tu§enberg's motion but felt that she must agree with Mr. Raso that he was present at the request of Council simply because they could not deal with a problem that has been, in her estimation, a gross waste of taxpayers' time and money up to this point. The Commission has to deal with this tonight and whether or not Council is asked to give Mr. Raso 30 days and cite him (which she did not feel was Council's intent since they had asked him for a variance), the Commission is following the letter of the law in what can be done here tonight. If Council intends to abrogate the law, that is their decision. The Chairman declared that the motion died for a lack of a second. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-87-11 - CONSIDERATION OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR HIDDEN MEADOWS, CHULA VISTA TRACT 87-11, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF OXFORD STREET AT CUYAMACA AVENUE GENTRY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Associate Planner Griffin stated that the subject property involved 5.5 acres located to the east of Hilltop Drive and south of East Oxford and is zoned R-1. The proposal is to subdivide the property into 18 single-family lots. Adjacent zoning is R-1 and RV-15 under the Montgomery Plan. The property is primarily surrounded by single-family dwellings although there are three two-family dwellings under construction adjacent to the northwest side of the property. Using slides he showed the topography and surrounding streets. Six lots would be served off a cul-de-sac extending from Cuyamaca Avenue; two lots off Oxford; the remaining ten lots off a long cul-de-sac coming off Hilltop Drive. Most of the pads are split-level; the smallest lot is 6,300 square Planning Commission -5- August 26, 1987 feet with the remaining being 7,000 square feet or larger. Two open-space lots on the north side of Cuyamaca and Tranquillo Courts would be owned and maintained by a homeowners' association. Staff recommends approval based on several conditions including submission of a landscape and irrigation plan for the open-space areas and a fencing plan for the perimeter of the site. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Those speaking were: William Babb, 1217 Hilltop Drive, 92010; Carl Dollick, 1264 Helix Avenue., Cathy M. Weinberg, 47 E. Olympia Court, 92011; A1 Tamayo, 1261 Helix Avenue; and Harold Moore, 1263 Cuyamaca Avenue. Mr. Babb said he had owned his property for approximately 25 years and had volunteered to give l0 feet of it to widen the street to 60 feet; that the public improvements would replace the present "cesspool" which is an attractive nuisance to children; also the development would inhibit illegal migrants and improve the entire area. Carl Dollick stated he resides in the adjacent property coming from Cuyamaca and expressed concern over the possibility of losing the extremely beautiful scenic view now available to him by either construction of the "decorative fence" or the homes. He noted the statement that the expansive soils were not considered a "significant impact" to neighboring homes, pointing out that he was presently engaged in a court battle because of slab problems caused by movement of the land; and that he is opposed to construction of two-story homes because of loss of the view and consequent devaluation of his property. Cathy Weinberg expressed interest in the number of stories, the square footage and price range involved; and favors the project as an asset to the community. A1 Tamayo, an ll-year owner/occupant, also expressed concern over loss of the view of all the Bay area and the bridge and requested he be kept informed of the proceedings. Mr. Moore, said he was interested in the resultant improvement of the neighborhood and expressed concern about the landscaping on Cuyamaca Lane. Associate Planner Griffin answered the expressed concerns saying that although it is not known at this time whether the dwellings will be one- or two-story, the elevation difference of 10 feet between Mr. Dollick's property and the bay of lots to the north would prevent a single-story structure from blocking the view; that the decorative fencing is a condition for the benefit of adjacent property, owners, is not intended to obscure the view and solutions like wrought-Iron fencing would be considered. The soils' test requirement is standard procedure before submittal of a grading plan and if extraordinary measures were required they would be made a condition of approval for that plan. Regarding Cuyamaca Lane landscaping, one of the conditions of approval includes a landscaping and irrigation plan submitted for City Landscape Architect review. Bill Gentry, 355 "K" Street, Chula Vista, the applicant, noted that the anticipated square footage is between 1,200 to 1,300 square feet with a price range from $115,000 to $120,000. No decision has yet been reached on the number of stories. Although there is a possibility of the subdivision being sold, if he built it, he would go to great lengths to ensure not blocking the view from the existing homes. Planning Commission -6- August 26, 1987 In response to a question by Commissioner Grasser, Deputy City Attorney Moore replied that conditions can be placed on tentative maps but they must concern public health, safety and welfare and she would be hesitant to place a (height) condition as proposed unless it could be found that there was something in the surrounding property that necessitated that type of condition. Principal Planner Lee remarked that the R-1 property zoning allows a 28-foot height; the adjacent areas and views are considered although the view is not guaranteed forever; there is a street separating the two developments and a 10-foot elevation difference providing a topographic separation. Associate Planner Griffin's response to Commissioner Green was that if the zoning had a "P Modifier" (precise plan designation) attached, such a height limitation could be imposed, however, in a basic R-1 zone there is not the same flexibility to apply separate standards. MSUC (Tugenberg/Fuller) to find this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-87-63. MSUC (Tugenberg/Fuller) (5-0) that based on the findings contained in Section "E" of the report, to recommend that Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Hidden Meadows, Chula Vista Tract 87-11, subject to conditions "a" through "q" contained in the staff report. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CERTIFIED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN - PCM-88-5 Senior Community Development Specialist Buchan stated that the proposed amendments involved two different facets: (1) temporary redesign of the CalTrans 1-5 off-ramp located in the northwest quadrant of I-5 and "E" Street which would be addressed by Redevelopment Coordinator Fred Kassman with City Traffic Engineer Chuck Glass and John Fischer from Caltrans available for questioning. (2) An exception to the existing restrictions on grading in the Bayfront Area involving the inland parcel, located north of "C" Street between Fifth and Broadway which would be addressed by Principal Community Development Specialist Robin Putnam. The Commission recommendation will be forwarded to Council on September 8 and, if approved, will be sent on to the Coastal Commission for review. Redevelopment Coordinator Fred Kassman presented a diagram of the circulation pattern as approved in the Local Program and also that of the requested amendment. He pointed out that the temporary redesign of the CalTrans 1-5/"E" Street off-ramp is needed to enable development of the future visitor commercial development site. Access to this presently land-locked site depends upon construction of Marina Parkway and Tidelands Avenue whose construction date is uncertain. CalTrans prohibits access to private parcels off their off-ramp facilities, and does not allow sewer and water facilities to cross beneath or laterally underneath their ramp facilities which prevents direct access to the development site. Mr. Kassman outlined the resultant problems including the necessity of routing the sewer and water lines out beneath the Marina Parkway and back under Tidelands Avenue, thereby crossing the railroad twice and requiring PUC approval. Planning Commission -7- August 26, 1987 He indicated that the temporary redesign of the approved intersection would include Bay Boulevard remaining open and continuing north, the "T-ing" of the off-ramp into Bay Boulevard,and the possible signalization at Bay Boulevard and "E" Street. The configuration will operate at a relatively low-traffic volume until development of the hotel site. And, as traffic volumes increase due to Bayfront development, the Bay Boulevard access would be closed and converted to the previously approved diagram and the hotel site would receive access from Tidelands Avenue. In response to Commission Tugenberg's inquiry about how far would the southbound off-ramp stack; would the cars be stacked behind the stop light; and how far north of "E" Street would the off-ramp be; Linda Whelry, CalTrans, replied that the proposed 700 to 800 feet distance would eliminate the problem of backing up traffic on the southbound off-ramp onto the freeway; and Mr. Kassman replied that the beginning of the off-ramp might be as far north as "D" Street. Principal Community Development Specialist Putnam discussed the request from CalTrans for an exception to the grading prohibition between November 1 and April 1 on an Inland Parcel site because they would like to utilize the fill from the State Route 54 flood control channel project. Grading for the channel project is halted during the least-tern nesting period (the summer), so they need to work during the period when grading is normally prohibited on the Inland Parcel. Staff is recommending the LCP amendment because it will allow for the nearby deposition of fill excavated from the Federal project and will also provide for a case-by-case review of grading plans to ensure that adequate protection for siltation from wetlands is provided (LCP's primary reason for the prohibition on grading between November 1 and April 1 annually). This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the hearing was closed. MSUC (Green/Fuller) 5-0, to find that the proposed LCP amendments will have no significant environmental impact and adopt Negative Declarations IS-87-52 and IS-SB-6. MSUC (Green/Full er) 5-0, to approve the proposed LCP amendments as presented. 4. OTHER BUSINESS: REPORT ON HERITAGE PARK, PCM-88-8 Associate Planner Griffin said staff had been directed to study the feasibility of establishing a Heritage Park on the 600 block of Second Avenue, primarily to provide relocation sites for historical homes that may be threatened by demolition. Upon consideration of the report, Council referred it to Planning Commission, the Resource Conservation Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission for input. The report represented a general overview of the issues from which a selection of one or more of the options would be made. Staff then would prepare a more detailed study and implementation program as well as a program to obtain input from residents and affected property owners in the area. _ Planning Commission -8- August 26, 1987 Three options have been considered. A Heritage Park or Heritage Row for the properties at 614 through 644 Second Avenue where two historical homes and eight single-family parcels are located. The third option would be a Heritage District for the area south of "l", north of "J", west of Second and east of mid-block between Third and Del Mar. A historical inventory conducted by the City identified 30 of the 60 homes in that area as potential historical sites; the Resource Conservation Commission has recommended seven of those for designation in the local Register and the E1 Nido House at 669 Del Mar is already a designated historical site. Option I is Heritage Park. Essentially, this would have a public park surrounded by privately-owned historical homes. The City would purchase the five parcels between the existing historical homes, resubdivide the area to create a park site fronting on Second Avenue with relocation sites for homes to the rear. The advantage of this option is the provision of a convenient display area for the homes and for public viewing plus a park area. The disadvantages, however, outweigh the advantages in that (1) public use would generate levels of noise and activity inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood; (2) attracting residents to the relocated heritage homes in a public display type area might prove difficult; (3) preservationists don't support this approach because of its artificiality in a historical sense; {4) the City might be hesitant about implementing the park plan with its resulting purchase and maintenance costs; and {5) the undesirability of having to secure intervening properties by use of "eminent domain" if the properties did not come on the market. A sub-alternate to this would be to create a public garden instead of a park thereby providing a forefront to the homes which would be inaccessible to the public and mitigate the noise and activity impacts on the neighborhood. Option II the Heritage Row concept also would require City purchase of intervening properties which would be sold in their entirety to private home-owners for relocation sites. The row of heritage homes would be on large lots for public viewing but the noise and activity impacts would be minimized. The historical integrity of the dwellings would be greater because they would be maintained as private residences on their own lots and the City would be relieved of the necessity to purchase and maintain the park area. A requirement for design and site plan review as the homes became available could be established and a open-space easement along the frontage of the lots would ensure an appropriate landscape concept along the public view. Option III the Heritage District concept would involve public controls and incentives primarily. The area would be placed within a historical district with or without a combination with Options I or ll. The area contains many historically significant homes. The neighborhood approach is favored by the preservation groups. The City (potentially) could offer loans and incentives to the homeowners for renovation and/or relocation of the homes to the District; and one or more lots within the District could be purchased and held for a relocation site should demolition threaten a dwelling in some other part of the City. This option could be viewed positively as protecting and enhancing the neighborhood and its character. Planning Commission -9- August 26, 1987 The Resource Conservation Commission has already reviewed the report and endorsed Option ll in combination with III; in other words, the Heritage Row and District concepts. Staff favors the District concept but other options are feasible. After the Commission recommendation, the matter will be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission and then returned to the Council who will decide if they want further study on one or more of the options. Questions answered by staff included (1) the District concept provides more of a regulatory and incentive program and it is unknown if it would include purchase of available homes or even of a relocation site; (2) the park connected with the Heritage Park concept might attract persons other than those interested it the historical homes; (3) an important consideration by the Federal Register is that the homes, if relocated, be within a single-family environment with as natural a background setting as possible rather than a heritage park environment. Additional discussion included the desirability of a designated semi-park resting area that would not infringe on neighborhood privacy; or of flowers and/or fruit trees enclosed by a wrought-iron fenced area; and the undesirability of additional cars and on-street parking. MSUC (Green/Fuller) to recommend that the City Council adopt a plan with the designation of a Heritage District and Row, and also incorporate some open space that won't lead to parking problems. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Director Krempl pointed out that no meeting was permissible on September 9, Admission's Day, and because of light filing the cases could be transferred to the meeting of the 23rd. However, he would like to retain the dinner workshop on the 16th and feature an update on the General Plan and a very good video on level-of-service (LOS) to be provided by the Traffic Consultant. The Commission agreed. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Tugenberg stated that he would be out of town from September 15 through October 26, 1987 on vacation. Director Krempl congratulated Joanne Carson on chairing her first meeting and the Commission added their approval. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:15 p.m. to the Study Session of September 16, 1987 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3 and to the Regular Business Meeting of September 23, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers Ruth M. Smith, Secretary Planning Commission WPC 4304P