Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1997/01/08 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 8, 1997 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Tarantino, Commissioners Davis, Thomas, Tuchscher, and Wilier COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Ray STAFF PRESENT: Deputy City Manager Krempl, Assistant Planning Director Lee, Assistant Planner Nevins, Assistant City Attorney Moore PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Tarantino led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag and a moment of silent prayer. MOTION TO EXCUSE MSC (Willett/Davis) 5-0 to excuse Commissioner Ray, who had an emergency in his family. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Tarantino wished everyone a happy new year and welcomed Ann Moore, who had not attended Planning Commission meetings for a while, and then reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None ITEM 1. ORDINANCE: ADOPTING A REVISED OTAY RANCH PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN OTAY RANCH L.P., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ORDINANCE: ADOPTING A REVISED OTAY RANCH PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN BALDWIN BUILDERS, AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PC Minutes -2- January 8, 1997 Commissioner Tuchscher declared that he had a conflict of interest on this item and excused himself from the dais. Deputy City Manager Krempl noted that eight different development agreements, for various entities on the Otay Ranch, had been processed through the Planning Commission and Council. All of those agreements contained a clause that stated that the agreements expired and became null and void if the annexation did not occur on or before January 1, 1997. The annexation had not been recorded and finalized by January 1; therefore, the agreements expired. Mr. Krempl stated that the Village Development with Otay Ranch L.P. and Baldwin Builders agreements were being brought back before the Planning Commission. Village Development was in the process of going through a final map and other entitlements on the property and finalizing those entitlements. The development agreement provided a context for the entire process and linked the GDP, SPA, and Tentative Map and all of the infrastructure and improvements, and provided guarantees that the City needed to be comfortable that those occurred. In addition, these two agreements were the most recent ones approved by the Planning Commission and Council and included changes made by the Planning Commission, Council, and City Attorney's office and refinements suggested by the applicants. These agreements did not require any other changes, in staff's opinion, whereas the earlier agreements would require additional work to bring them together. It was staff's goal to make them all consistent. Mr. Krempl stated there were no substantive changes in the content, the representations that were made, or the benefits to parties. There were changes relating to the term. After review by the attorney's office, additional language had been added to have an outside date of July 1, 1997. The annexation with LAFCO was only good for one year, and staff contemplated completing the annexation before that. If annexation was not completed by July 1, 1997, or extended, the development agreement would again become null and void. Staff was comfortable that that would not occur. Mr. Krempl asked for any comments or questions. Commissioner Willett complimented staff on their thoroughness. The development agreement covered all of Planning Commission's questions. For future consideration, he suggested that a table of contents by paragraph and page. Chair Tarantino noted that this was not a public hearing, but he had two requests to speak. The speakers did not have a presentation, but would be willing to answer questions. He asked if anyone had questions for either Kim Kilkenny of Village Development or Bill Brasher of Baldwin Builders. Commissioner Willett had a question related to the center of the property, having to do with the status of the West Coast Land Fund. Kim Kilkenny, Village Development, 11975 El Camino Real, San Diego, stated that the West Coast Land Fund property was now owned by West Coast Land Fund and no longer by Tiger II, which was an entity previously controlled by Village Development. They had been informed that the land had been put on the market for sale. PC Minutes -3- January 8, 1997 Commissioner Willett asked how their disagreement with the General Plan had been resolved. Mr. Kilkenny said there had been some concern with the Specific Plan and the Tentative Map which was proposed on the property when Village Development had control of it. Relative to the Tentative Map, at West Coast's request, no Tentative Map had been approved for their portion of the ownership within SPA I. There was no Tentative Map on that property. The SPA Plan was recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. The SPA Plan did apply to their property. West Coast Land Fund had requested meetings with Village Development as adjacent property owners to try to work out areas of conflict. There had been two meetings previously and there would be a third meeting the following Friday to see if there were areas where they could resolve mutual problems. Commissioner Willett asked if when that was resolved, would it require another agreement? Assistant Attorney Moore stated that this particular development agreement did not cover West Coast property. It covered Village Development's property. There would most likely be a separate agreement. MSC (Willett/Davis) 4-0 (Ray excused; Tuchscher-conflict of interest) to accept staff's presentation of the drafts of both Village Development and Baldwin Builders, as presented. Bill Brasher, 17550 Gillette Avenue, Irvine, CA, regarding Telegraph Canyon, informed the Planning Commission that the Bank of America had become the lead debtor and possession lender in place of Foothill. At the same time, construction loans were being processed through Bank of America for all of their uncompleted inventory. Their hope was that that would be completed, approved, and would be commencing at the end of the month. That would get all of the subcontractors paid off and would get all of the construction underway. Commissioner Tuchscher returned to the dais. ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-97-08; REQUEST TO ENCROACH INTO REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR CERTAIN PORTIONS OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 1095 AUGUSTA PLACE, WITHIN THE PC (PLANNED COMMUNITY) ZONE - Augusta Place, L.L.C. Assistant Planner Nevins presented the staff report, which was a variance request to encroach into the 20' front yard setback. The authorization would be for a 2'10" maximum encroachment into the 20' setback. It was a semi-custom home which had already been constructed, and the encroachment was an existing condition. Ms. Nevins then showed slides of the lot, slope, and the adjoining open space easement. This encroachment was brought to the attention of staff by a neighbor. Regardless of the fact that the condition is existing, staff considered it the same as if it were not. Ms. Nevins noted the factors contributing to staff's support including the slope and the easement condition at the rear of the property which limited the buildable area on the pad; it is a single-story custom home which is more difficult to develop than the two-story PC Minutes -4- January 8, 1997 homes found in the area; the setback only applies to a portion of the structure. Ms. Nevins noted that the encroachment was minimal and was less than 50% of the frontage. Staff supported the request and recommended approval. Commissioner Davis asked if the width of the front of the house included the entrance. Ms. Nevins stated the width of the entrance had been left out. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Frederick A. Hahn, 5112 Calle Potros, Bonita 91902, stated that he was the owner of the residence at 1099 Augusta Place which adjoined the south side of the subject residence. He objected to granting of the variance on the ground of hardship. The variance would be a hardship suffered by himself, not the applicant, and the variance would constitute a special privilege. He had built a large custom home in accord with the developer's stated vision, including a 25' house setback and 27' for the garage. His lot had the same constraints for building as the subject site. In order to comply with EastLake's stated vision, the only design which made sense was the more expensive two-story house. Contrary to the staff report, allowing a variance to 17'2" destroyed the concept upon which Augusta Place was originally built, and upon which his house was designed and built, therefore detracting substantially from the value of the property. Regarding the lot size, he quoted EastLake's requirements. EastLake said it could be done; staff said it was a hardship. Regarding special privilege, the front wall of the house was 7' 10" forward of the architectural guidelines and in violation of the City setback requirements by 2'10". The garage at 19'2" was also in violation. The entryway complied. He noted special warnings, in EastLake's architectural guidelines and CC&Rs, about observing setback rules established by the City of Chula Vista. He read a letter written to Ken Larsen on December 10, 1996, which is included in the project file. Mr. Hahn concluded that there was no hardship as presented by staff. Any building limitations were well known in advance, established by EastLake, and dealt with adequately by himself and EastLake by constructing more expensive two-story homes, not non-complying single stories. A hardship to Mr. Hahn would result from the variance being granted and would impose a substantial loss of value on his property, which is in compliance. Meanwhile, special privilege is being and has been granted to the requesting party. Commissioner Tuchscher asked Mr. Hahn, in a best-case scenario, how he would see a solution being brought forward in this situation. Mr. Hahn said the house could be torn down or modified; EastLake could put him back in the position he was before he got involved in building them, which would be very expensive for them; he paid $209,000 for the lot--he believed the lot of the Brehm house was sold to them for $125,000, and they currently were building a one-story house which infringes on the setback and selling it for between $350,000 to $357,000. He suggested EastLake could pay him the difference between what he paid for his lot and what Brehm had paid. Earlier, because of some other complaint, EastLake had rebated $15,000 which he used for landscaping, etc. PC Minutes -5- January 8, 1997 Commissioner Tuchscher stated that the item before the Planning Commission was only for the location of a portion of the house--the front wall. The Planning Commission did not have the power to force an individual to compensate Mr. Hahn economically, or deal with issues that are macro-economic issues relative to this type of land use. The Planning Commission could deal only with the location of the front wall, forcing a reconstruction of that wall or allowing the wall to stand. Reconstruction would probably move it back 2'10". He asked Mr. Hahn if that was something he was looking at as a solution. Mr. Hahn thought he would. He thought it was unconscionable for them to break the EastLake setback rule by 5' and then proceed to break the City's setback by 2'. Commissioner Thomas asked staff to point out the area of encroachment. Mr. Lee said one area was 13'2" and another was about a 10' area, for a total of roughly 234/2'. Mr. Hahn had pointed out there were two segments on the edge of the garage which also projected slightly. Commissioner Tuchscher clarified that the Planning Commission was being asked to consider the City zoning and setback ordinance, but the presentation and agenda statement also referred to the existence of a subdivision design guideline, which Mr. Hahn referenced. Assistant Planning Director Lee said that that was his understanding. He deferred to Mr. Sloan of EastLake regarding that. Bruce Sloan, representing EastLake Development Company, said the house was not built on that location by mistake; they had not made sure that all the documents required for the variance had taken place during the approval process. It should have been noted so it would be apparent. The drawing had only shown a 20' dimension to the garage, and it was not readily apparent to the plan-check people that the north end extended out another 2'. At that scale, it was not something readily apparent. An application for the variance was submitted when the situation was brought up by the adjacent property owner. He thanked staff for processing the variance in an efficient manner. He commented that the Planning Commission was to speak to the 20' setback which was required by the EastLake Planned Community District regulations, which called for a minimum of 20' setback for front entry garage. The other distances of 25' had to do with the architectural design guidelines, which are guidelines used for the planning and construction of homes in that subdivision. Those are considered, and variances had been made in the past. Regarding the City ordinance versus subdivision design guidelines, Commissioner Tuchscher asked the City Attorney to comment on the Planning Commission's purview and, relative to design guidelines, any enforcement mechanisms or flexibility issues that the Planning Commission should be advised on. Attorney Moore replied that architectural guidelines were commonly created by developers when they create projects, and they could do that on their own. It often become incorporated into their CC&Rs. As long as such guidelines were not inconsistent with the City's zoning PC Minutes -6- January 8, 1997 ordinances, they were free to do that. It was common for amhitectural guidelines created by the developers to be sometimes more restrictive than the City ordinances. The requirements of the architectural guidelines are not in the purview of the City. It was up to the developer and the homeowners association to enforce. The City enforces its zoning regulations. In this case, the Planning Commission should consider the variance. Commissioner Tuchscher stated that, generally speaking, architectural guidelines or design guidelines put in place by a master developer were designed to maintain values, and asked if the guidelines were generally very subjective and regulated by the master developer. Mr. Lee concurred, and added that the City is usually never aware of the details of those particular architectural guidelines. Also, the developer had in many cases a lot of latitude in terms of how those might be amended from time to time. Contrary to the CC&Rs in which a city may be a party and might have input, the City would not in this particular case. Commissioner Willett stated that he had thought about how this could be missed, and contrary to what Mr. Hahn had said, he felt this was an innocent mistake and was overlooked because of the 17.33 in one area which was basically the window frame of the front bedroom and the two fillers on the garage. He supported the 20' setback requirement and the concept of staggering the homes and not putting them in a straight line. After visiting 1085 and 1090 Augusta Place, he did not believe there was any alternative but to support the request for a variance and the recommendation to the staff and to EastLake to ensure that the builders that are contracting to EastLake are aware of the 20' setback, and that personnel within the building inspection department, or plan check, are all aware of it. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MS (Thomas/Willett) to accept staff's proposal and grant the variance. Commissioner Davis commented that there was always an alternative. The Planning Commission could decide to not approve it, and fome the builder to tear 2'10" off that area. She alluded to Commissioner Willett's comment about how this could be missed, and she thought it was a small mistake compared to 6' or 10' over the limit where it would have been obvious to everyone. It was unfortunate that it happened, but she thought 2'10" was not something she would feel comfortable with having it torn down and changed. She thought it would affect the house. She would support the motion. Chair Tarantino said that, barring the fact that the house was constructed, the Planning Commission got many requests for variances which were much more obtrusive, not as tastefully done. Had this come to the Planning Commission prior to the actual construction, he would have approved the variance. Aesthetically, it looked nice, and he did not think it was obtrusive to the point where it destroyed the character of the neighborhood, and the fact that the house was constructed did not change how he would vote. PC Minutes -7- January 8, 1997 Commissioner Tuchscher did not feel enough one-story houses were being built in Chula Vista. It was difficult to build one-story houses because of the set-backs, very expensive to get the square footage that justifies land values, and felt it was a very tastefully done house. If the decision had been brought before the Planning Commission on paper prior to building, he thought he would have felt very comfortable with this minor intrusion into the City setback. He would like to see more single-family homes in this area. He was supportive of staff's recommendation. Commissioner Thomas noted that he had also walked around the property and he, too, found it not intrusive. Commissioner Willett said that in talking with Mr. Sloan of EastLake, he was under the impression that EastLake would ensure that from here on out the builder would be briefed on the 20' setback. He was satisfied that steps would be put in place to ensure no further mistakes. He supported the variance. Commissioner Tuchscher disclosed that he also had visited the site, and he was amazed that with the number of permits pulled in South Bay every year, something like this did not happen more often. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Ray excused) to approve the variance. ITEM 3. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-96-13; REQUEST TO INCREASE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE TO 47% FOR AN OVERHEAD SHADE CLOTH STRUCTURE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH HOME ORCHID GROWING AT 1341 PARK DRIVE, WITHIN THE R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE - Eugenia Hammond Assistant Planning Director Lee stated that staff had been working with Ms. Hammond and her attorney on a plan that would possibly be more acceptable to the neighborhood and the Planning Commission; however, Ms. Hammond had requested a continuance because of surgery. He asked that it be continued to February 12, 1997. Commissioner Willett asked if staff had been out to look at the property lately. Some of the things that were going to be done had not been done. He suggested that the building inspector go back out to look at it. MSC (Davis/Tuchscher) 5-0 to continue ZAV-96-13 to February 12, 1997. ITEM 4. PUBLIC HEARING: SUPS-97-02; REQUEST FOR A SERVICE STATION REMODEL TO INCLUDE GASOLINE SALES, CONVENIENCE STORE, AND CARRY-OUT AND DRIVE-THROUGH FAST FOOD SALES AT 902 BROADWAY, WITHIN THE C-T (THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL) ZONE - Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc. PC Minutes -8- January 8, 1997 Mr. Lee asked that this request be continued indefinitely. This was a mitigated negative declaration which the applicant was required to sign. The applicant refused to do so. A meeting had been scheduled with Engineering to try to resolve that issue. It was not a Planning issue. He did not know how long it would take to resolve that. Commissioner Davis asked what type of mitigation was involved. Mr. Lee replied that it related to a median construction that would preclude left turns for a portion of the property. It was a major expansion of that facility in terms of its operation, with a drive through, etc. Associate Planner Nevins stated that median would be in "L" Street and would preclude exiting and entering on "L" Street, left-hand exits out. MSC (Willett/Davis) 5-0 to continue SUPS-97-02 indefinitely. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Assistant Planning Director Lee noted the new tentative agenda for the Planning Commission for the next several months. The next workshop would be in February to discuss the MSCP and, hopefully, come back to the Planning Commission with a better understanding of the work effort for the coming year. A joint meeting with GMOC was anticipated for April, which may be moved to a Thursday, depending on the City Council schedule. He noted the information had been received for the Planners Institute to be held in Monterey, March 12-14. The Planning Commission budget included around $1300, which would be adequate for two members to attend, giving each Commissioner approximately $650 each. He understood that Bob Thomas was interested, and it was unlikely that a new Planning Connnissioner would have been appointed by that date. The other logical option was to consider whether or not the Chair wished to attend. He asked that the Commissioners let the Secretary know as soon as possible so we could obtain hotel reservations. Commissioner Tuchscher said he had been fortunate enough to attend a number of these and disqualified himself from eligibility. He highly recommended that new members attend. Commissioner Davis would be returning from out of state that weekend and would not be able to attend. Commissioner Willett would like to attend and waive the cost of the round-trip transportation. Commissioner Davis felt the Chair should attend. Chair Tarantino needed to check his calendar. He asked Commissioner Willett if the registration would need to be paid. Mr. Willett stated that the hotel and registration would be required. Chair Tarantino stated he would check and get back with the Secretary within the next two weeks. Commissioner Thomas was definitely going to attend. PC Minutes -9- January 8, 1997 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Willett asked if at the workshop on February 19th regarding MSCP, the presentation by Duane Bazzel regarding the Fish & Wildlife preserve overlap could be included. Mr. Lee noted that he would check with Mr. Bazzel and Mr. Leiter. ADJOURNMENT at 8:20 p.m. to the Workshop Meeting of January 15, 1997 at 5:30 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2/3, and to the Regular Business Meeting of January 22, 1997, at 7:00 p .m. in the Council Chambers. Planning Commission (n~:\home\plannlng\nancy\pc96min\pcl-8.min)