Loading...
Item 4 - DR 94-07 VAR 94-13 Shea Homes CITY OF POWAY TO: Honorable Mayor and Members off_the City Council FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Man~ INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manager Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planing Services F_.tL-~{~ DATE: January 17, 1995 SUBJECT: Development Review 94-07 and Variance 94-13, Shea Homes Applicant REVISED INFORMATION Representatives and Shea Homes and City Staff met with residents in the area surrounding this proposed development on Thursday evening, January 12, 1995 to discuss issues raised during the public hearing on January 3, 1995. The following is a summary of issues discussed at that meeting. Two-story homes adjacent to residences on Montauk Street. Shea worked with adjacent residents to reorient the house on Lot 15 so that it impacts them less. Lot 8 could be changed to a single-story plan, however, this would result in the rear wall of the house being 15' closer to adjacent residences. Shea will meet with adjacent residents to determine their preference on this matter. Some of the residents along Montauk have expressed a desire to have a block wall rather than a wood fence along the eastern perimeter of the project. Shea has agreed to construct the wall, as requested. Park. Residents at the meeting expressed a desire to retain the park in the project and understand that the mini-park standard does not call for restrooms or parking at the park. In response to the concern that small children will run out into Pomerado Road from the park, Shea proposes to install a self-closing gate in the wrought-iron fence. The consensus of the neighbors was that this would be satisfactory, particularly since the gate could be locked in the future if there proved to be a problem. HeiQht of wall alonq Pomerado Road. A resident from across Pomerado Road expressed a desire at the January 3 meeting that the perimeter wall for the project be at least 80" high. The sound study has indicated that the wall will need to be 8' high so this desire will be met. ACTION: lof4 JAN 1 ? 1995 Agenda Report - January 17, 1995 Page 2 On-site parking: Concern was expressed at the January 3 meeting that on-site parking would be inadequate. At the January 12 meeting it was explained to neighbors that the houses each have a 2-car garage with adequate space to park at least two cars on each driveway. In addition, streets are full public standard. The project does not provide the number of yards with 15' sideyard setbacks to allow RV parking; however, the consensus of the neighbors was that this was acceptable because it is consistent with what exists in surrounding areas:-' Variances requested: The issue of the number of variances requested was raised by one individual at the January 3 hearing. Maps showing the location and nature of the requested variances were posted at the neighborhood meeting which was held on Thursday, January 12. No questions were raised during that meeting regarding variances. The variances requested are as follows: Lot 3: The southwest corner of the house projects 2.5' into the required rearyard setback. The encroachment reduces to nearly zero at the southeast corner. The setback area where the encroachment occurs faces Metate. Lot 6: The southwest corner of the house projects 7.5' into the required rearyard setback. The encroachment reduces to zero at the southeast corner. The setback area where the encroachment occurs faces Metate. This lot has an unusually large side yard. Lot 27: This house projects 6.5 feet into the required rearyard over one- half of its width. The eastern half of the house observes the required 20' setback. The rear of this house faces the creek. Lot 46: The southeast corner of this structure encroaches 0.6' into the required rearyard which is adjacent to the rearyard of another house within the development. At the southwest corner of the house the setback exceed requirements by 2'. Lot 49: The street sideyard setback along Metate varies from 5' to 9.3' where 10' is required. Lot 50: This house projects 1.2' into the required rearyard over 30' of its width. The remaining 10' maintains the required 20' setback. In addition, this house has a 22.9 foot sideyard. The substandard rearyard faces another house within this subdivision. Lot 51: This house has a setback which varies from 17.5' to 18.1' along a rear property line which abuts two other houses within the project. The side yard is 20' at the rear of the building. Lot 56: This house maintains a 7.3' street sideyard setback over its 22' width along the ± 89' property line facing an interior street in the project. JAN 1 ? 1995 ITEM 2of4 Agenda Report - January 17, ]995 Page 3 Lot 53: The northwest corner of the house projects 0.8' into the required street sideyard setback. The building meets setback requirements at the northeast corner. The substandard setback is adjacent to an interior street. Lot 58: The support post for the porch encroaches 0.6 ' into the required street side-yard setback along an interior street. The remainder of the structure meets setback requirements. Performance bond: One individual has requested that the developer be required to post a long-term bond of at least ]5% of the gross value of the proposed project (over and above normal construction bonds). Such bonds are not required by law and it is not the practice of Poway, or of most cities in California, to require such bonds. Notice: The issue of whether there was proper notice for this project has been raised. On June 7, ]994, notice was sent to 139 property owners concerning the tentative map hearing; two of these were returned as undeliverable. Notice was sent to 125 property owners on December 20, 1994 for the Development Review hearing; four of these have been returned as undeliverable. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council find that the previously certified Final £IR for the Seniors Village adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed development and approve Development Review 94-07 and Variance 94-13, subject to the conditions contained in the attached revised proposed resolution. JLB:RWQ 3 of 4 JAN 1 ? 1995 ITEM - R~olution No. P- F ~e 3 SITE DEVELOPHENT ]. Site shall be developed in accordance with the approved site plans on file in the Planning Services Department and the conditions contained herein. 2. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all conditions of approval shall be submitted to the Planning Services Department prior to issuance of building permits. 3. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 4. The CC&R's shall prohibit the storage of recreational vehicles in the required front yard setback. 5. Mail boxes shall be installed according to a plan which is acceptable to both the Post Office and the Director of Planning Services. 6. The developer shall integrate an appropriate variety of approved roof materials and colors into the design of the residential development in a manner which is both complementary with surrounding development. 7. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Uniform Fire Code, and all other applicable codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 8. For each new residential dwelling unit, the applicant shall pay Permit, Plan Check and Inspection Fees, School Fees, and Affordable Housing In- Lieu Fee, at the established rate (in accordance with City-adopted policy and/or ordinance). 9. Street names shall be approved by the Planning Services Department prior to the recordation of the final map, and street addresses shall be provided prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. A ~i~ii~i~ pedestrian pass-through and double gate shall be installed at'~h'6"F~f6'6asement adjacent to Pomerado Road. 11. Masonry walls shall be installed along the west side of Lot 36 and the north side of Lot 38 to provide adequate buffering from the park. A line of vines shall be installed along the outside walls to screen them from view from within the park. 13. Park playground equipment shall meet ADA requirements. Park construction shall be completed prior to final occupancy of the first home. 14. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project within two years from the date of project approval. 4 of 4 JAN 1 ~ 1995 ~!:~ ~ AGENDA Iin[ORT SUMM - ~. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ~ FROM: Oames k. Bowersox, City Man~ ~ INITIATED BY: John O. Fitch, Assistan~ City ~anager~ ~ ~eba Wright-Quastler, D~raeto~ of Plan ing Services DATE: January 3, 1995 SUBJECT: Development Review 94-07 and Variance 94-13, Shea Homes Applicant ABSTRACT A request to approve the design and placement of 62 single-family homes on the 9.92 net acre site located at the northeast corner of Metate Lane and Pomerado Road, in the RS-7 zone. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #890100) was certified by the Poway City Council on June 26, 1990. FISCAL IMPACT The subject property is located within the Redevelopment Area. The increase in property tax receipts will equal 1% of the sales price of the home less the previous assessed land value prior to development. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE 'ublic notice was published in the Poway News Chieftain and mailed to 125 property owners within 500 feet of the project. 1ECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council find that the previously certified Final EIR for the Seniors Village adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed development and approve Oevelopment Review 94-07 and Variance 94-13, subject to the conditions contained in the attached proposed resolution. ACTION ~~nuary. 17, 1995 to allow developer to meet with neighbors. Marie Lofton, ~Y Clerk JAN1?1995 ~i:M ~4 1 of 21 JAN 3 1995 )'F~_M 11 ~ AGENDA REPORT CITY OF POWAY TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Ma~ .naer(~¥ INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City ma g Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planning Servicesi2~-~ Marijo Van Dyke, Associate Planner DATE: January 3, 1995 MANDATORY ACTION DATE: January 17, 1995 SUBJECT: Development Review 94-07 and Variance 94-13, Shea Homes, Applicant: A request to approve the design and placement of 62 single-family homes on the 9.92 net acre site located at the northeast corner of Metate Lane and Pomerado Road, in the RS-7 zone. APN: 317-211-02,04 BACKGROUND On June 21, 1994, the City Council approved the subdivision of the subject property into 62 single-family lots and an approximately one-half acre neighborhood pocket park. The site is relatively level, sloping gently to the northwest. A considerable amount of clean fill dirt will be required to be placed in order to bring the buildable portion of the property out of the 100 Year Floodplain. The remainder of this property is located within the boundaries of Poway Creek, and will be revegetated following the grading operation in the appropriate riparian habitats. FINDINGS The new subdivision, which has been named Poway Oaks, contains 62 residential lots and a small park created under Tentative Tract Map 94-02. The lots each exceed the minimum size for the RS-7 zone. Sixteen lots exceed the previous minimum lot size for that zone of 6,000 square feet, while fourteen are at the minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet. The homes will range in size from 1,680 square feet to 2,050 square feet for the largest of the three models. Each of the models will be offered in four ACTION: See Summary Sheet 2 of 21 JAN 3 1995 11 Agenda Report January 3, 1995 _ Page 2 elevations and color packages. A gray and dar~ brown flat concrete roof bile will be offered, as well as two colors of low profile "s" tile. Trims will vary from beige with brown accents, a warm gray with cream and darker gray accent, a golden tan with pale tan and olive green accent, and a mauve and gray trim combination. All models contain one of the four types of brick trim. Each model and elevation will be built with a front porch. Each of the two-story models offers an optional second-story deck off the master bedroom. The single- story model (Plan 1) contains a den at the front of the house, which projects in front of the garage. Together, this room and the porch bring the house farther forward on the lot, adding more interest to the street scape. The placement of Plan 1 on Lot 49 will require approval of street side setback variance due to the size of the single-story footprint on a lot where the width tapers toward the back. Front yard landscaping and yard fencing will be provided with the project. The mix of plant materials proposed for use are all of drought tolerant variety, but are common landscape specimens, which are successful in Poway, and are relatively low in maintenance. Staff has explored the "affordability" issue with this project and has ascertained that some of each plan will likely be priced within the means of moderate income households, at the sales prices currently anticipated projected by the builder. Lots 3, 6, 27, 46, 50 and 51 will require rear yard setback variances from the 20 feet ranging from .6 feet to 7.5 feet. Lots 53,56 and 58 will require street sideyard setback variances from .6 feet to 2.7 feet from the normal ten (10) foot setback. Staff further recommends that a variance be granted from the zoning code requirement to provide wide sideyards on 25% for purpose of R.V. storage. Given the average width of the lots at approximately 55 feet, the requirement would be very difficult to satisfy. A twelve-foot-wide graded pathway will be created at the top the channel bank to provide access for creek maintenance. Two access ramps will also be installed, one extending north from the storm drain easement on Lot 37, and another extending northward toward the channel adjacent to Lot 15 and the subdivision's eastern boundary. The preliminary landscape plan for the pocket park includes a tot-play area and equipment meeting ADA requirements, concrete sidewalk leading from the cul-de- sac, past the play area to the half-court basketball court, and turf play area. A gated paved emergency services easement is provided along the south side of the park lot. A line of shrubbery will be placed along the fence line adjoining Lots 36 and 38 to help soften the effect of the park location next to each. No restroom facilities or on-site parking are provided with the park. In order to assure visibility to the Sheriff's Department, the fencing along the Pomerado Road frontage of the park will be wrought iron. A pedestrian pass through will be included to permit residents easy foot and bicycle access to Pomerado Road - while preventing unwanted vehicular traffic from entering the neighborhood. JAN1?1995 ITEM 4 JAN 3 1995 I~E~ 11 3 of 21 Agenda Report January 3, 1995 Page 3 An acoustical study will be conducted to determine the size and placemenb of sound attenuation walls at the perimeters of the project. Staff estimates that the walls will vary in height from five to six feet in most locations. The name of the project will be impressed on the wall returns at the entry of the project off Metate Lane. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #890100) was certified by the Poway City Council on June 26, 1990. Achannel restoration plan was subsequently submitted to the State and Federal regulatory agencies who have jurisdiction over waterways and their adjoining areas. Channel revegetation will be accomplished with a permit issued by the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Restoration work will consist of the construction of a wetland area along the south creek bank and within a portion of the southern channel area, to include a host of native species or plants. Staff recommends that the Council find that the provisions of the EIR address the environmental concerns relating to the current project, and that no further project-specific environmental review is required at the development review since it the logical conclusion of the previously approved subdivision map. FISCAL IMPACT The subject property is located within the Redevelopment Area. The increase in property tax receipts will equal 1% of the sales price of the home less the previous assessed land value prior to development. The increased tax increment will be retained for use by the City of Poway. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE Public notice was published in the Poway News Chieftain and mailed to 125 property owners within 500 feet of the project. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council find that the previously certified Final EIR for the Seniors Village adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed development and approve Development Review g4-07 and Variance 94-13, subject to the conditions contained in the attached proposed resolution, JLB:RWQ:MVD:kls Attachments: A. Proposed Resolution B. Zoning and Location Map C. Site Plan D. Building Elevations E. Floor Plans F. Mini~ Park Concept ~1~ G. J. uiaz ~etter, ~-J-~ e:\city\planning\report\dr9407.agn JAN 1 ? 1995 ~i=~ 4 JAN 3 1995 I~E~ 11 4 of 21 RESOLUTION NO. P- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY. COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 94-07 AND VARIANCE 94-13 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 312-211-02,04 WHEREAS, Development Review 94-07 and Variance 94-13, submitted by Shea Homes, applicant, requests approval of the development review to allow the construction of 62 single-family homes, ten of which will require the granting of variances from required setbacks, and none of which can provide for R.V. storage. The 62 homes will be constructed on lots created by Tentative Tract Map 94-02, on the property located at the northeast corner of Metate Lane and Pomerado Road; and WHEREAS, on January 3, 1995, the City Council held a hearing on the above- referenced item. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1: Environmental Findinqs: The City Council finds that the previously certified EIR of June 26, 1990 adequately addresses the concerns of this project. Section 2: Findinqs: Variance 94-07 1. The approved project is consistent with the general plan in that it. proposed construction of single-family homes in an area designated for residential use. 2. That the approved project will not have an adverse aesthetic, health, safety, or architecturally related impact upon adjoining properties, because building square footages, rooflines, materials, and building materials are compatible with nearby developments. 3. That the approved project encourages the orderly and harmonious appearance of structures and property within the City, because it is similar to and complements other residential development in the vicinity. 4. That the approved project is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, except with regard to minimum building setbacks on ten lots for which a variance is sought. In all other respects the homes meet the development standards of the underlying zoning. Variance 94-13 1. The approved project is consistent with the general plan as previously discussed. JAN 1 7 1995 rl'i::~l 4 5 of 21 JAN 3 1995 I'~'F_.M 11 Resolution No. P- Page 2 2. That there are special circumstances applicable to ten of 'the subject lots, and because of this, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under identical zoning classification. In order to achieve an acceptable mix of residential units, ten of the models are placed on lots which lack either adequate width or depth to enable them to observe all required setbacks. Further, all of the lots are narrow, and do not provide an opportunity for R.V. storage within the side yards. 3. That granting the variance or its modification is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zoning for which the variance is sought. The variance will permit the construction of homes which are of an acceptable size to the surrounding neighborhood so that assurance of the maintenance of property values can be made. 4. That granting the variance or its modification will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located, in that Metate Lane will be widened. Drainage and flood control improvements will be constructed by the building of this project which will benefit the surrounding neighborhood. 5. That the granting of this variance does not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in that the design of these homes is consistent with the features and quality of the newest homes constructed in Poway's most recent tract development. 6. That the granting ~f this variance does not allow a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by zoning development regulations governing the parcel or property. Section 3: City Council Decision: The City Council hereby approves Development Review 94-07 and Variance 94- 13, subject to the following conditions: Within 30 days of approval (1) the applicant shall submit in writing that all conditions of approval have been read and understood; and (2) the property owner shall execute a Covenant on Real Property. COMPLIANCE WITN THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS IS REQUIRED. COMPLIANCE SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES. JANl?1995 ~i=M ~ JAN 8 199S |iF.)1 6 of 21 Resolution No. P- - Page 3 ~ITE DEVELOPMENT 1. Site shall be developed in accordance with the approved site plans on file in the Planning Services Department and the conditions contained herein, 2. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all conditions of approval shall be submitted to the Planning Services Department prior to issuance of building permits. 3. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 4. The CC&R's shall prohibit the storage of recreational vehicles in the required front yard setback. 5. Mail boxes shall be installed according to a plan which is acceptable to both the Post Office and the Director of Planning Services. 6. The developer' shall integrate an appropriate variety of approved roof materials and colors into the design of the residential development in a manner which is both complementary with surrounding development. 7. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Uniform Fire Code, and all other applicable codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 8. For each new residential dwelling unit, the applicant shall pay Permit, Plan Check and Inspection Fees, School Fees, and Affordable Housing In- Lieu Fee, at the established rate (in accordance with City-adopted policy and/or ordinance). 9. Street names shall be approved by the Planning Services Department prior to the recordation of the final map, and street addresses shall be provided prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. A pedestrian pass-through and double gate shall be installed at the Fire easement adjacent to Pomerado Road. 11. Masonry walls shall be installed along the west side of Lot 36 and the north side of Lot 38 to provide adequate buffering from the park. A line of vines shall be installed along the outside walls to screen them from view from within the park. 12. Park playground equipment shall meet ADA requirements. Park construction shall be completed prior to final occupancy of the first home. 13. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project within two years from the date of project approval. 7 of 21 Resolution No. P- Page 4 LANDSCAPE INPROVENENTS 1. Complete landscape construction documents shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Services Department prior to the issuance of building permits. Plans shall be prepared in accordance with City of Poway Guide to Landscape Requirements (latest edition). 2. Street trees, a minimum of 15 gallon size or larger, shall be installed in accordance with the City of Poway Guide to Landscape Requirements and shall be planted at an average of 30 feet on center spacing along all streets. 3. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. The trees shall be encouraged and allowed to retain a natural form. Pruning should be restricted to maintain the health of the trees and to protect the public safety. Unnatural or excessive pruning, including topping, is not permitted. 4. Parkway areas'adjacent to Pomerado Road and Metate Lane shall be planted and irrigated in accordance with the requirements outlined in #1 above. SIGNS Any signs proposed for this development shall be designed and approved in conformance with the Sign Ordinance. ADDITIONAL APPROVALS REQUIRED 1. The developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use Map, or suitable alternative, in the sales office at all times, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning Services. 2. All sales maps that are distributed or made available to the public shall include but not be limited to trails, future and existing schools, parks, and streets. 3. The developer shall provide a noise display board in the sales office to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning Services. The display shall include the site plan and noise study information. 4. Working drawings shall include a certification by a recognized acoustical expert that the requirements of the City of Poway's Noise Ordinance will be met. 5. At the completion of construction, and prior to occupancy, interior and exterior CNEL shall be determined by field testing at developer's expense. Tests to be conducted by a recognized acoustical expert. No occupancy permits shall be granted until this test is met to the satisfaction of the Building Code (latest adopted edition) "Sound Transmission Control" JAN 17 1995 ITel'VI ~ JAN 8 1995 ~T~-~ 11 8 of 21 Resolution No. P- Page 5 COHPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS IS REQUIRED. COMPLIANCE SHALL' BE APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING SERVICES. All engineering related conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Map 94-02 contained in Resolution P-94-31 remain in effect. There are no additional Development Review conditions. COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS IS REQUIRED. COMPLIANCE SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY SERVICES. 1. Roof coverings shall be fire retardant as per UBC Section 3203{e) and City of Poway Ordinance #64. 2. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on the building in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background. Address may be required at private driveway entrances. 3. Emergency access from "C" Street to Pomerado Road shall be paved and gated at each end. Appropriate "No Parking Fire Lane" street markings and signs shall be installed. The gates shall be 20 feet in width. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND APPROVALS All conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Map 94-02 contained in Resolution P-94-31 shall be completed. APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Poway, State of California, this 3rd day of January, 1995. Don Higginson, Mayor ATTEST: Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk JAN 1 ? 1995 I' EM 4 JAN 8 1995 rFE~ 11 9 of 21 RR-A RR-C,., OS - RM RR-A CITY OF POWAY ~TEM: TITLE : ZONrNG ~ SCALE : 'NONE ATTACHMENT : B 10 of 21 JAN 1995 ITEM ~, 11 of 21 ~'o,o~,~:,,,o, 1995 15'~M 11 JAN 1 IT~.~ ~ jAN ~ ~ I'[J~ 11 12 of 21 ~ 1 7 1995 /+ ' 'q 13 of 21 I 3 1995 11 j/~ 1 ? 1995 ~.4 o~' 2~. JAN 3 1995 1..1.. JAN ! ? 19~ l'[~ # 15 of 21 JAN 3 1995 11 dAN 1 ~ 1995 4- ~ 16 of 21 JAN 3 1995 1'7;~ 11 JAN 171995 I-~, M 4 JAN a 1995 rJ'i-'M 11 18 of 21 -- TESTIMONY PRESENTED BEFORE THE POWAY CITY COUNCIL IN OPPOSITION TO: Staff recommendation to approve development Review 94-07 and Variance 94-13, Shea Homes, Applicant. PRESENTED AT A PUBLIC HEARING BY: Joseph D.K. Diaz, Jr. 12820 Montauk Street Poway, California January 3, 1995 Poway, San Diego County California EXHIBIT G JAN 1 ? 1995 I'J'~,l~ A- 19 of 21 /~ 7--~-~-- ~// Good evening. My e is Joe Diaz, and my fa · and I have resided in Poway, ~alifornia at 12820 Montauk ~or nearly two decades. Tonight, I am here to briefly address the latest attempt to once again, go forth with a proposed project which will sig- nificantly change in an adverse way, the quality and character of our community. Several attempts have'been made in the past - to sell, plow, fill, cut, negotiate and build in one of the last truly open residentially surrounded open spaces in South Poway. Tonight, I join with my neighbors to once again voice my opposition to the latest proposed project. We oppose the staff recommendation for approval for the following reasons: 1. Staff has failed to recommend that a Trust Account or Bond, of at least 15% of total gross value of the proposed Project be established by the Applicant in the event all conditions, wiavers, permits and variances which are being endorsed, are not met, completed, faulty, prone to accident, natural or man-made, as a result of the activity set forth by the Project, and for any accidental direct or in-direct problem caused to the immediate and surrounding community and resi- dential properties as a result therein. 2. We are opposed to the Project in that a "considerable amount" of till dirt will be required to be placed in order to bring the buildable portion of the property out of the 100 Year Floodplain. The intensity of the dust and it's direct impact on the health of many seniors living in the area and children who attend the three nearest schools will be significant. In reference to attempting to reducing the natural floodplain many of us still remember the disaster caused by the last major downpour and flooding and the City's inability to cope with even that event. 3. We are opposed to the Project in that when the prior Ap- plicant achieved approval for the Pomerado Senior village, staff simply converted the approved EIR for that project to the currently proposed. Two different and significantly focused and directed projects. 4. We are opposed to the recommendation to approve the Project based on a number of requests for variances, which include but are not limited to the following issues: a. Zoning codes variances and waivers: b. No restrooms in a recreational area: c. Insufficient off-street parking for proposed residents: d. Significant traffic problems presently in the area and the proposal to widen Metate: c. Allowing ten of the lots to fall significantly below zoning requirements: d. Staff has "explored the affordability issue" yet, the market in the last 24 months would argue differently. 20 of 21 ,JAN 1 ? 1995 -- 5. We are opposed to Variance Request 94-07 because, 1. we do not believe the project is consistent with the General Plan; 2. The proposed project will have an adverse aesthetic, health, safety, or architecturally related impact ad- joining properties, because building square footages, rooflines, materials, and building materials are not compatible with nearby developments; 3. The proposed project does not encourage the orderly and harmonious appearance of structures and property within the community and does not complement other residenttial development in the vicinity; 4. The proposed project is not in compliance with all Zoning Ordinances; 5. Current traffic conditions and proposed changes will create significant safety risks; 6. We are opposed to Variance Request 94-13 because, 1. The project is not consistent with the general plan; 2. There are a number of serious circumstances applicable to at least ten of the lots and granting variances will be carrying out of unfair public policy to previous other denied requests for like variance activity; 3. The granting of this variance constitues a special pri- vilege to the Applicant not consistent with the limita- tions placed upon other existing properties. We conclude that to maintain the best use of the current site as a open space surrounded by residential sites many in the area for nearly four decades, reflects the best safe, fair, effective, orderly and legal use of this site. Allowing for the significant number of variances requested by Applicant, clearly indicates an inappropriate Project with significant negative and long lasting safety, traffic and quality of life issues which niether the Applicant nor Staff has effectively addressed. Thank you. 21 of 21 JANl?1995 ITEM A.orn.y.,,-w RECEIVED 3737 Camino del Rio South, Sle. 400 SanDiego, CAB2108-4010 JAN 1 3 1995 - Tel. (619) 280-3332 ext. 145 / FAX (619) 497-5566 CiTY OF POWAY CITY MANAGERS OFFICE January 12, 1995 "~-- The Honorable Mayor Don Higginson Mayor of Poway Council Susan Calery Bob Emery Mickey Cafagna Betty Rexford Dear Members and Mayor of the City of Poway: I represent Mr. Joseph Diaz, a resident of Poway who, along with nearly 150 immediate _ neighbors will be significantly impacted by the Proposed Development Review 94-07 and Variances 94-13, Shea Homes Applicant. At the January 3, 1995 Council meeting held to review the design and placement of the 62 single-family homes, you heard extensive testimony in opposition to the proposed Project, it's density, traffic and safety concerns, and a number of other significant problems related to the site. At the meeting, and quoted in news accounts of the meeting, the Council is quoted as stating that "the issue is a done deal" and that the time to have appealed the matter was at the June meeting when the final request for the density of the Project was discussed and final approval granted. It was further stated that public notices were mailed to the required residents who would be impacted by the Project. Further, it is my understanding that representatives of Shea Homes indicated that extensive community meetings were held to discuss and review the proposal before coming to the City of Poway for approval. We have obtained copies of the mailing records, labels, meeting notices, etc. from the City Clerk's Office regarding all meetings related to the proposed Project, including the crucial meeting at which the decision was made to approve the significant density of the units on the site. We have done so in view of the fact that after individual contact of at least 75 of the residents by my client, prior to the Januaq, 3, 1995 Council meeting, we have discovered that one of the reasons only one (1) resident actually showed up at the crucial June heating was that only four residents actually received the notice to that session. JAN 1 7 1995 ITEM Mayor and Council - January 12, 1995 Page Two Additionally, in contacting the residents for the January 3, 1995 Council meeting, my client also discovered that only five residents knew about the meeting and the rest indicated that they had not received any type of communication from the City of Poway. Due to the significant discrepancy which includes but is not limited to the number of residents you saw:?aS~ tually attending the January 3, 1995 meeting only after being alerted by my client; and due to the fact that nearly all of the residents have indicated that they had not received notification to several of the key public hearings, and due to the fact that my client and the majority of the impacted residents have never been contacted by Shea Homes representatives, then or now, we are requesting that the City of Poway provide us with a Proof of Mailing Service specifically confirming that residents received notification of said hearings, as required by law. There was extensive flooding which took place in the immediate area of Metate, Pomerado and Montack streets this past Wednesday night, January 4, 1995. There was flooding on the actual site of the proposed Project. Going forward until a number of significant issues are addressed is wrong. That field is pan of a flood plain. Had that Project been in place on the night of January 4, 1995, with the thousands of meters of fill dirt as currently proposed, every single house in the neighborhood would have been completely flooded, including those on the proposed site. In fact, on that night many cars in the area had water levels reach as high as their door handles. We are respectfully requesting that the City of Poway, Mayor and Council re-open the hearings on this proposed Project. You will find, that unless the City of Poway can prove that all the affected residents were properly notified and certified proof can be presented, going forward in view of such significant opposition and problems with the proposed site and Project is indeed questionable public policy. Prior to the next Public Hearing on the Project on Tuesday night, January 17, 1995, we are requesting from the City of Poway a response to my client's concerns. He is opposed to the Project because: 1. Staff has failed to recommend that a Trust Account be established of at least 15% to 20% of the total gross value of the proposed Project by the Applicant in the event all conditions, waivers, permits and variances which are being eadorsed are not met, completed, faulty, prone to accident, natural or man-made, as a result of the activity set forth by the Project, and; for any accidental direct or indirect problem caused to the immediate and surrounding community and residential properties as a result therein. For example, this past Wednesday, January 4, 1995, would the taxpayers have had to pay for flooding damages, etc., as a result of the significant alteration of the Flood Plain in the field? Mayor and City Council - January 12, 1995 Page Three 2. Based on a number of requests for variances, which include but are not limited to the following issues: a. Zoning codes, variances and waivers; b. No restrooms in a recreational area; C ..... Insufficient off-street parking for proposed residents; d~'" Significant traffic problems presently in the area and proposal to widen Metate Street; e. Allowing ten of the lots to fall significantly below zoning requirements; f. The density, price, past and current market conditions of the proposed Project. This is particularly important given the City of Poway's past approval of the now bankrupt industrial Project and the present scheme to place one of the second or third largest outdoor amphitheaters in the Country in the area of South Poway. Finally, my client, Joseph Diaz, is asking for a response to the key question: Why does the Poway City Council feel that this is a 'done deal" when the very community and neighborhood it will so very negatively impact is so very opposed to it? - Your response to these questions and issues prior to the next meeting on the Project on Tuesday, January 17, 1995, will determine the advice and counsel I will provide my client regarding his Sincerely, MICHAEL B. LEVIN Attorney at Law MBL:Imc JAN 1 7 1995ITEM 12826 Montauk St. John L. Johnston (619) 486-2245 eve Powa¥, CA U.S.A. (619) 458-0259 day Jan 17, 1995 Re: Variance 94-13 and Development Review 94-07 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: My name is John Johnston. My wife and I live at 12826 Montauk Street, which is adjacent to the east side of the property in question, and specifically we are immediately adjacent to Lot 14 of the proposed development. We have owned this property for the last 16 years. For the record, I would like to state that we did not receive any notification regarding the hearing in June, and in fact our first contact regarding the proposed development was received in late December. I have a number of concerns about the proposed development, however for the next few moments, I would like to specifically describe it's impact on our property. Lot 14, which extends across the entire rear width of our property, is one of the smaller lots at 4900 square feet. Due to the density ofthe project, atwo storyhouse is proposed for this lot. Theheight ofthe housewill be approximately 27 feet above our rear yard elevation, and it will extend along my rear property line for over 46 feet, at a setback of only 6 feet. To put it another way, we will have a 46 ft long x 27 ft high wall (if you will) coveting almost 60% of our rear property line, only 6 ft away! I find this totally unacceptable! With the current design, it would place two upper story bedroom windows in clear view of our master bedroom, guest bedroom and family room area. This design will significantly affect our privacy, not to mention, the breezes we count on during Poway's hot summer days, and what little view we have enjoyed for the last 16 years. We also believe that this could have a major impact on our ability to sell our home in the future. Let me mention here, also, that the proposed house on Lot 14, at 6 ft is the closest house in this development to any existing property. In the entire project, the next closest house is about 23 ft from existing property, with an average setback of about 30 feet. I understand that this meets city codes, however, again, because of the density of the project, I feel our property is being unfairly penalized. I have discussed with Shea Homes the possibility of changing, or relocating the proposed house. Due to the density of the project, relocation is apparently not possible, and their only solution would be to reverse the plan of the house. While this change is better than the original proposal, it still falls well short of what I would consider acceptable. Therefore, because I do not believe that these concerns were adequately considered or represented when the project was designed, because I do not believe that I, along with a number of my neighbors, were properly notified regarding this project, and because of the significant impact on our property, I would like to request that the City Council reopen full public hearings on the original application and variances requested. ADDENDUM TO STATEMENT by John L. Johnston Re: Variance 94-13 and Development Review 94-07 In the evem, that the City Council chooses not to reopen public hearings on this issue, I would request that the Council requires Shea Homes to make some major changes in the site layout of Lot 14. I have discussed possible changes with Shea Homes, however, without Council direction, they have not offered to make any significant changes to the layout. My suggestions are as follows (in order of my preference): 1. Move the house on Lot 14 to another location in the proposed development. Allowing at least a 25-30 foot setback from our rear property line. If 1 is not possible: 2. Change the design of Lot 14 from a two-story to a single story home. If 1 & 2 are not possible: 3. Reverse the layout of the house from Plan 2R to Plan 2. Here, I would like to discuss the specific layout, and a possible privacy hedge between our rear property line, and the house. I would expect that the new property owner would be required to maintain this hedge for the life of the property. Please note that Shea Homes, has agreed to discuss this option, although we do consider this the least acceptable of the three options. In addition to the above, I would support the request for a block wall to be placed the full length of east border of the development.