Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1994/01/26 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:05 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, January 26, 1994 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Martin, Commissioners Fuller, Moot, Ray, Salas, Tarantino, and Tuchscher (arrived 7:08) COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Principal Planner Griffin, Associate Planner Hernandez, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Martin. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Martin reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None ITEM 1. PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: DRC-94-10 CONSTRUCTION OF 51 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS ON THE UNDEVELOPED PORTION OF THE BAYONA NEIGHBORHOOD WITHIN RANCHO DEL REY - Kaufman and Broad Principal Planner Griffm and Associate Planner Hernandez presented the staff report, and noted that staff recommended approval of the project, subject to conditions. Commissioner Ray asked if the elevation on Martos and Gredos was the same as on Norella. Staff requested that the applicant respond. PC Minutes -2- January 26, 1994 Gregg Linhoff, 12626 High Bluff Drive, San Diego, representing Kaufman and Broad, answered that the two cul-de-sac streets were higher in elevation than Norella Street and Esla Drive. Commissioner Ray asked why four lots in the existing neighborhood would be a segway into the Bayona housing group. Would the shading of the houses be varied; what was the reference to the segway going into the existing neighborhood. Mr. Hernandez replied that the condition referred to the use of the flat tile versus the barrel-type. The residents had raised the issue of the different types of roofs. Commissioner Ray was concerned about the transition into the Bayona neighborhood, and that the transition point would be moved by four lots. Associate Planner Hernandez replied that the condition was an attempt to soften the transition, but it would be noticeable. Principal Planner Griff'm said the transition effort was for the existing residents; if future residents had a concern about the transition farther down the street, they could choose not to buy the home. Commissioner Salas asked if the builder was agreeable and able to use the barrel-type roofs on the lots specified, why couldn't he use it throughout the whole project. The question was deferred to the public hearing portion to be answered by the applicant. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Gregg Linhoff, representing Kaufman and Broad, 12626 High Bluff Drive, San Diego, the developer, noted the application was originally submitted to the City for an administrative site plan and architectural approval. Because of concerns of the Bayona residents, there had been three meetings with them and several changes had been made. The residents believed there would be a decrease in value of their homes; difference in colors to be used in the stucco trim; the darkest roof tile would be incompatible with the existing roof tiles on the Bayona homes; concern that over time children might break the trellis work on plan 1; and front yard landscaping. He proceeded with an explanation of the compatibility of the projects. Regarding the mixing of flat and harrel-type tiles, he pointed out that it was desired by the developers to mix the types of roof tile within their neighborhoods. Mr. Linhoff said it helped maintain interest; a certain amount of variety was encouraged, desirable, and benefited a community. A flat-tiled roof house, however, would not be adjacent to the Bayona homes. Mr. Linhoff asked for approval of the project, with the following modifications to the conditions listed in the resolution: Item 'a'. The developer interpreted the word "similar" to mean that the proposed tiles were in fact similar and the condition would not dictate a change from what they were proposing. Item 'b '. The trellis was solid backed by a plywood sheeting and probably stronger than the typical stucco exterior. They felt the trellis work was consistent and compatible PC Minutes -3- January 26, 1994 within their own houses which were highly consistent and compatible with the Bayona homes. They asked that this condition be deleted. Item 'd'. The fencing program had already been submitted and approved by the master developer and the perimeter fencing was 100% complete. They would not have any involvement in the fencing. Commissioner Tuchscher, referring to Item 'a', stated that the applicant was looking for was a change in verbiage to say "in colors as proposed." Mr. Linhoff concurred. At Chair Martin's request, Mr. Linhoff showed each proposed tile in comparison with the existing tiles in the light, so the differences could be seen. Commissioner Salas concluded that there were three elevations in each floor plan; two had barrel roofs and one had a flat roof. Mr. Linhoff concurred. Commissioner Tarantino, regarding garage door colors, asked if there was a variation in colors. Mr. Linhoff stated there was a variation in color; they were not all white. In answer to Commissioner Moot, Mr. Linhoff stated the porch columns used in the plans were square and were made of wood. Commissioner Moot asked what plans would go into the transition area. Mr. Linhoff said it had been plotted, but he did not have them with him. Commissioner Moot asked if the plans with the trellis and stepped-up porches were proposed in the transition area. Mr. Linhoff believed there was one within the eight lots adjacent to the Bayona homes, but not immediately adjacent to the existing homes. Commissioner Fuller asked Mr. Linhoff to comment on the type of landscaping design to be used. Mr. Linhoff said landscaping design was not part of this process, but they were contemplating including front-yard landscaping as a standard feature. It had not yet been designed. Whether or not they did this was a marketing decision. Commissioner Salas asked if the lots were wider than the existing homes. Mr. Linhoff said the lots within the tract varied from lot to lot. They were building on each lot as it exists without the use of retaining walls, which Mr. Linhoff said were sometimes used to eliminate a sideyard slope and allow a wider pad. Commissioner Ray was concerned about the type of texture on the stucco. He asked what would be different about the seven homes which would be in the transition area. Mr. Linhoff said the finish would be the same type of finish that exists on the Bayona homes. The transition elements principally relate to the use of barrel roof tile for all seven of the lots, plus the house at the end of Esla Drive. PC Minutes -4- January 26, 1994 Commissioner Ray concluded the barrel-type roof would be used on 66% of the homes. Mr. Linhoff concurred. Commissioner Tarantino stated the correspondence which had been received from the residents included some concerns over which the Planning Commission had no control in terms of inferior amenities, etc. He asked those who spoke to address their concerns only to the architectural compatibility. Chair Martin called Mr. McKey to the podium and asked that he speak only to the design. Mr. Taras McKey, 111 Elm Street, Suite 350, San Diego, attorney for the Bayona homeowners, and some of his family who lives in the subdivision, said there was a clearly demarked area which had always been identified as Bayona Subdivision. When they bought their homes, they also bought into a neighborhood as it was presented to them. The CC&Rs governing Bayona outlined rules that required all current homeowners to go through a long series of red tape before they could make any kind of construction or improvements on any of their homes. The CC&Rs would be an appropriate standard to use when considering whether the new proposed plan was comparable and in continuity with the existing homes. Mr. McKey showed overheads regarding floor area ratios and compared the square footage and prices of the Bayona homes to the proposed homes. For the record, Mr. McKey said that with the reduction in price and the substantial drop in size in the neighborhood, the current Bayona homeowners were facing what they considered to be a drastic impact on the value of their homes. If that happened as a result of this body's decision to approve this plan, this body's decision would reduce the value of private property in the City and could be looked at as a government taking of private property. Mr. McKey said that, while the City has power to do that, there needs to be a public benefit for such a taking and, when there is, just compensation be awarded to property owners who lose their property. Mr. McKey appealed to the Commission to help them in protecting their interest as the current Bayona homeowners to preserve the homes they bought, the neighborhood they bought, and the peace of mind they thought they bought when they moved into Bayona. Commissioner Tuchscher asked Mr. McKey to show the overhead having to do with floor area ratio. Mr. McKey said the text was from the CC&Rs that bind the homes in Bayona; actually from additional covenants and restrictions that were established in 1992. The original CC&Rs were recorded in 1989. Commissioner Tuchscher asked that the text be read into the record: "City ordinances and regulations and their interpretation are subject to change, and measurement and determination of floor area is a technical process. Therefore, owners should consult with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department for an official determination prior to committing to or starting any addition to their homes." PC Minutes -5- January 26, 1994 In answer to Chair Martin, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf said if property in a subdivision which was affected by CC&Rs was sold to someone else, the subsequent taker would be bound by the covenants which ran with the property. Commissioner Ray asked if Kaufman and Broad was bound by the same CC&Rs since they purchased the property from McMillin who had initiated and developed that area as a community. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf believed, as a subsequent taker, they would be subject to the same CC&Rs. Commissioner Moot said he had driven through the property. The two cul-de-sacs numbered 1 and 2 appeared, because of the height differential, the access street, and the layout, to be distinct from Norella Street and Isla Street which was one street. He asked Mr. McKey if they had a problem with the different architectural styles if they were up in Martos Place and Grados Place which appeared to be not on the continuous street. Mr. McKey said that would be better than the proposal, but it was a completely enclosed area and a distinct neighborhood. Commissioner Moot commented that it would be very strange to have one distinct architectural style and half-way down the street a different architectural style. The cul-de-sac did not appear to present that type of problem. Jerry Park, 954 Norella St., CV 91910, a resident of Bayona, stated that the shape of the homes did not match up; the new homes were wider in front, shorter in back; the chimneys were prominent, more exposed; Norella Street was a continuous street and it could not be camouflaged by putting similar types of roofs on the homes. Marvin Simkin, 950 Norella St., CV 91910, resident of Bayona, said his home was next door to where the transition was being proposed. He suggested that if the same colors as Bayona could be used on Lot 1, perhaps the same colors could be used on the rest of the houses. He noted that colors show up differently in different lights; and that the black stripe on the roof tiles proposed would, from a distance, tend to blend in with the rest of the color and would have a darker effect. John Higgins, 968 Norella St., CV 91910, was concerned about the difference in the two developments, the landscaping; there was no guarantee that the landscaping would be put in; the fences around the development segregated the development from other developments; there was no proposed fencing as in the Bayona neighborhood; they were proposing smaller, cheaper homes in a neighborhood that already exists. Homayoun Nabizadeh, 949 Norella St., CV 91910, said that Mr. L'mhoff had stated the homes would be compatible. Mr. Nabizadeh felt the California Castillo (Kaufman and Broad homes) were compatible, but were starter homes. Ms. Carolyn Little, 725 Esla Drive, CV 91910, restated that the CC&Rs dictated every change the current residents could make in their homes. She felt everything was different in the newly PC Minutes -6- January 26, 1994 proposed homes. She did not understand how they could make so many changes, and the residents could not. Chair Martin asked the applicants if they would like to respond, specifically to the CC&Rs. Steve Guy, speaking on behalf of McMillin Companies, 2727 Hoover, National City, stated that additional CC&Rs were recorded against each phase as constructed--not against the unf'mished phases. Therefore, the lots that Kaufman and Broad have purchased are not within the CC&RS and are not hound by the same CC&Rs. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf concurred; the previous question regarding CC&RS was, if a house was already covered by CC&Rs and was sold, would it be bound by the CC&Rs. In that case, the property would be bound by the CC&Rs. In answer to Chair Martin, Mr. Guy stated that the property that was sold when the homes were built had additional CC&Rs placed against that property. They were never placed against the Kaufman and Broad property, and therefore never bound by those CC&Rs. Mr. Rudolf asked if the Kaufman and Broad property was covered by the 1989 CC&Rs. Mr. Guy believed those CC&Rs covered all the property. The additional CC&Rs were the ones which had been referred to earlier. Commissioner Ray asked when the Kaufman and Broad property is completely developed, would the Bayona property owners still be bound by the same CC&Rs and would Kaufman and Broad now retain the whole community which would be bound under another set of CC&Rs. Mr. Linhoff said there was a master set of CC&Rs (Declaration of Restrictions) which encompassed the majority of the Rancho del Rey community and provided general guidelines, and provided for annexation of specific neighborhoods or groups of lots into the master CC&RS. This was accomplished by a subsequent recordation of supplemental CC&Rs and declaration of annexation. As an individual group of homes was brought on line, the supplemental CC&Rs and declaration of annexation was then recorded which specifically annexed those particular lots into and under the jurisdiction of the master CC&Rs, and also provided additional restrictions more specific to that neighborhood. The lots on which Kaufman and Broad were proposing to build would be subject to a declaration of annexation yet to be recorded. Commissioner Ray concluded that the homes that Kaufman and Broad were proposing to build would fall under the CC&Rs that exist today for the residents of Bayona. Mr. Linhoff clarified that they would be under the "master guidelines." The supplemental CC&Rs would annex them into the master and would provide for additional restrictions specific to that group of lots. Commissioner Ray asked if McMillin had retained the property, developed the lots and sold them, they would have been considered part and parcel and under the umbrella of the existing CC&Rs of Bayona. Mr. Linhoff said they would be subject to the master CC&Rs only. The PC Minutes -7- January 26, 1994 supplemental CC&Rs are recorded at the time the lots have been sold off by the master developer to a merchant builder, or if the master developer was also the builder, they were typically recorded at the time the permits were pulled. Commissioner Ray noted that there could be multiple homeowners associations with the same number of CC&Rs that fall within that master plan. Mr. Linhoff stated there could be a number of declarations of restrictions within a community. Commissioner Ray asked the Assistant City Attorney if the City had any input as to approval or denial of those specific CC&Rs as they are annexed within the master. Mr. Rudolf said it was a typical subdivision requirement, but not required by the City. The City would generally not have any influence over it. The City, however, was party to some CC&Rs in some subdivisions. In answer to Chair Martin, Mr. Linhoff stated Mr. McKey's reference to floor area ratios was provided in the CC&Rs as a general statement which reflected existing City ordinances and did not set a minimum standard. Commissioner Tuchscher clarified that no matter who built on those lots, they would have the option to record whatever CC&Rs they felt were appropriate for that particular neighborhood. The issue of CC&Rs was not an issue for the Planning Commission. Chair Martin was concerned that under the CC&Rs, a new builder could not come in and make the new development the same as the existing. Mr. Linhoff stated that all the property within Rancho del Rey, for any improvements of any type, were subject to review by an architectural review committee. This was a committee composed of members appointed by the master developer. Any changes were subject to approval by the architectural review committee. That was the same committee that would review a proposed room addition, repainting, fence change, landscape, etc. that might be done by an existing owner. Commissioner Moot asked if the Municipal Code Section provided with the staff report was to be used as a guideline regarding harmony and proportion. Mr. Rudolf affirmed and reviewed the proposed findings submitted for Commission approval. Mr. Linhoff pointed out that Kaufman and Broad had three floor plans; the exisfmg Bayona homes consisted of four. Kaufman and Broad did not have a house they considered comparable in size to Bayona's 2100 sq. ft. home. When comparing the other three plans to Bayona's, the average size difference was less than 100 sq. ft. He asked for Planning Commission approval based on the changes they had asked for in the resolution. PC Minutes -8- January 26, 1994 Commissioner Tarantino noted that in his neighborhood, there was a transition into another neighborhood with different amhitecture. The transition had worked very well, and it was not necessarily something that would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Commissioner Fuller commented that the proposed development was in substantial compliance with the site development regulations. She stated that the homeowners were looking at it from a different bias. Speaking to the homeowners, Commissioner Fuller said that a neighborhood was not a collection of houses; it was a feeling of people. She challenged them to not listen to Mr. McKey's statement that it would be a threat to them as people because the homes would be considered different. The threat was not the difference in architectural style, but the alienating of people against people because there were some differences there pemeived in the shades of color on the fronts of the houses or the tiles of the roofs. Answering Commissioner Ray, Principal Planner Griff'm said the matter had not gone to the Design Review Committee because it required a site plan and architectural approval, which was a Zoning Administrator process. By Code, the appeal body on Zoning Administrator site plan and architectural review is the Planning Commission, not the Design Review Committee. The Code provides no option to send it to the Design Review Committee. The Assistant City Attorney informed the Commission that, at the City Council meeting the night before, the Council had adopted an urgency ordinance, giving the possibility of an appeal from a site plan and architectural review decision by the Planning Commission appealable to the City Council. Commissioner Moot asked to what extent this situation had come up before regarding transition in styles in mid-street. He was concerned about Novella Street and the transition in mid-street; he thought the cul-de-sacs could be designed however they wished and it would not impact the neighborhood adversely. He did not have a comfort level of such a transition having been done before and if it worked. Mr. Griffin knew of a transition in EastLake which had been accepted by the existing neighbors, but it was a somewhat different type of transition. Commissioner Tuchscher understood that the existing residents would like to have the same models built out on the street and have that continuity; however, no matter who built out the lots in today's market, it would be a different housing product to cater to a different housing market. He believed a product as different as possible would retain more value for the neighbors, because in an appraisal process would be their specific neighborhood rather than an identical house down the street in the new construction that sold at a much lower price. He felt different styles, different sizes, different colors would be better from a value standpoint. Commissioner Ray asked Mr. Linhoff if any thought was given by Kaufman and Broad to use McMillin's existing plans to build out at least Novella Street. Mr. Linhoff stated that an architectural design is protected under copyright laws; they were not the owners of that PC Minutes -9- January 26, 1994 copyright and did not have the privilege to build out those identical homes unless they purchased or otherwise obtained that. Kanfman and Broad had in-house design, and felt their product was the most appropriate for the market. Commissioner Ray asked if there was an option to separate Norella Street from the other two neighborhoods. Mr. Rudolf said the Commission was free to structure their approval, but it had to be tied to the finding that it was compatible. MS (Moot/Ray for discussion) to approve the resolution as is for the cul-de-sac areas 1 and 2; and for the rest of Norella Street pending some visual depiction of streets where transitions had been made in mid-street and he had some comfort level that it worked; he would like for the applicant to come back and convince the Commission it would work on Norella Street. Commissioner Salas thought the builder had presented enough evidence and material that they could see that the product would blend in. She did not believe there would be a drastic change. Commissioner Tuchscber did not wish to delay the project to bring back slides of other projects. It was evident to him that someone on the Council wanted to hear it; he would like to see the project voted up or down as is, rather than send a convoluted Planning Commission recommendation. Commissioner Moot, as the maker of the motion, withdrew his motion pending a motion on the entire project, if the second agreed. Commissioner Ray thought this was two, maybe three, distinctly separate neighborhoods. He felt the cul-de-sacs should be treated as a separate issue. In listening to Commissioner Tuchscher's comments about the diversity of product and protecting the prices for the residents of Esla Drive and the portion of Norella which had been built, he agreed that they would be better off with a different product so that they were not comparables taken at lower values. He also agreed with Commissioner Moot. Commissioner Ray asked, before withdrawing his second, if the purpose for voting the item up or down strictly to get it moving forward, or did the Planning Commission want to make a recommendation as to what they really believed should happen? Commissioner Salas said she was going to vote the way she felt and the way she believed was right, no matter what was pending with City Council. Commissioner Ray asked Commissioner Moot if the original motion was not approved, if he would be willing to separate the neighborhoods and approve pans of this. Mr. Moot concurred. Commissioner Ray then withdrew his second. PC Minutes -10- January 26, 1994 MSC (Tuchscber/Fuller) 4-3 (Martin, Moot, Ray against) to adopt Planning Commission Resolution DRC-94-10 approving the site plan and architecture for DRC-94-10 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, with a revision to condition 'a' to read "Lots 24-26 and 46-49 shall be developed with models using the barrel-type roof in the colors proposed which are similar to the ones used in the existing Bayona homes." Commissioner Ray asked to go on record stating that if the Planning Commission had separated the completion of Norella Street, he would have voted for the project. As a result of everything being combined, he could not. Principal Planner Griffin noted that the item was appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's decision. Chair Ma~'m thanked the residents for attending the meeting and for their input. At 9:20 p.m. Chair Matin declared a 10-minute break. At 9:30, the meeting reconvened. ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-94-20/PCA-94-02: CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY LANDSCAPE MANUAL AND ASSOCIATED AMENDMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE - City Initiated (continued from the meeting of 12/8/93) Principal Planner Griffin stated that Assistant City Attorney Rudolf had determined there were certain legal issues which needed to be assessed regarding this item. Staff was recommending that the item be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 23, 1994. MSUC (Ray/Moot) 7-0 to continue PCM-94-20/PCA-94-02 to the meeting of February 23, 1994. DIRECTOR'S REPORT ITEM 3. DISCUSSION OF UPCOMING PLANNING COMMISSION CONFERENCES Principal Planner Griffin made comments regarding upcoming conferences available to the Planning Commission, and the options available to the Commission. Commissioner Ray commented on some of the topics to be discussed at the San Diego Conference. Five Commissioners indicated they were interested in attending the San Diego Conference. Commissioner Tarantino indicated he would not be able to attend because of school intercession; Commissioner Moot would also be unable to attend because of business commitments; Commissioner Fuller would not be able to participate on the 9th. PC Minutes -12- January 26, 1994 Commissioner Tuchscher commented that he was very concerned regarding the decisions being made relative to land uses. Staff was not being allowed to do their job properly, issues were treated specially rather than abiding by the existing ordinances and procedures that staff, DRC, and Planning Commission have been put in place to implement. He was concerned that it would only escalate; he was distressed about it, and would try to influence Council to be cautious about micro-managing and thereby slowing the system down. ADJOURNMENT at 9:45 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of Wednesday, February 9, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Nancy Ripley, Secretary Planning Commission