Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1997/11/05 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:04 p.m. Wednesday, November 5, 1997 Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Staff Present: Chair Davis, Vice Chair Willett, Commissioners: Tarantino, Thomas, O'Neill Commissioners Aguilar, Ray Ken Lee, Acting Planning Director Patty Nevins, Acting Associate Planner Jeff Steichen, Assistant Planner Brad Remp, Assistant Director of Building and Housing Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney MOTION TO EXCUSE MSC (Willett/O'Neill) 5-0-0-2 to excuse Commissioner Ray and Aguilar. Motion carried. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Read into the record by Chair Davis. August 13, 1997 MSC (Willett]Thomas) 5-0-2 (Ray, Aguilar; excused) to approve the minutes of August 13, 1997 as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-98-04; Consideration of an amendment to Section 19.34.030 of the Municipal Code to allow drive-through fast-food restaurants in the C-N Neighborhood Commercial Zone, subject to approval of a conditional use permit - Kelton Title Corporation. Background: Patty Nevins, reported that PCA-98-04 is an amendment to the zoning code to allow drive-through fast-food restaurants in the C-N Zone subject to the approval of the Conditional Use Permit. The purpose of the C-N Zone is to provide convenience, goods and services within residential neighborhoods in a manner which is complementary to, and compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - November 5, 1997 Ms. Nevins further stated that although the zoning code does not specifically define drive- through restaurants, it does address drive-in restaurants, which are prohibited in the C-N Zone. Due to the similar automotive-oriented nature of the two, staff has consistently interpreted the prohibition on drive-in restaurants to apply to drive-through restaurants as well. After receiving the application, staff analyzed the nine C-N zone commercial centers located within the City. Staff's findings were that a number of these C-N zones appeared to be in transition due to external contributing factors, which seem to have changed the character of some of these zones, such as; large and intense uses nearby, major streets, circulation patterns and increased traffic. The result has been that not only are these zones serving the surrounding neighborhood, but are now also serving residents from other neighborhoods with the City. Ms. Nevins indicated that the use of the Conditional Use Permit process provides for more in- depth review, allows public input, and protection of neighborhood quality, when necessary, insures that proposals are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, allows the imposition of conditions and does not guarantee approval should a project prove to be inappropriate. Presently, drive-through car washes and service stations are conditionally permitted uses and staff finds that the allowance of drive-through restaurants would be consistent with those two uses that are already provided for in the C-N zone. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCA-98-04, recommending that the City Council approve the amendment to allow the consideration of drive-through restaurants in the C-N zone through the conditional use permit process. Commission Discussion: Commissioner Thomas expressed concern with the Conditional Use Permit process in that a business may be in non-compliance, however, unless a complaint is filed, there is no system in place to follows-through with enforcement in bringing it into compliance, therefore, the CUP roles over year after year. Ken Lee, Acting Planning Director, stated that one of the first steps in going through the Conditional Use Permit process is to determine whether or not the use is compatible with the adjacent uses, and if not, address the conditions that would make it compatible. Mr. Lee further stated that ideally, the CUP's should systematically be reviewed on a yearly or quarterly basis, with the conditions being reviewed and site visits being conducted to check to see if they are in compliance. However, understaffing precludes this from happening, therefore, the complaint process is what staff relies on. Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - November 5, 1997 Commissioner Thomas further stated that there are a number of CUP's that have a number of conditions required in order to bring it into compliance, however, some of these requirements would not necessarily generate a complaint; case in point, the swap meet located on L Street which had a parking lot pavement program as part of the conditions the City was requiring. Director Lee stated that those types of requirements are imposed by the City and followed-up by the City as well. Taking the stated example of the swap meet; the City is presently corresponding with the applicant with regards to the base material that is to be used for temporary paving of the parking lot. There is a dispute over the base material being an oil-mix vs. water base, and we are waiting for the City Engineer to render an opinion on a base material that would meet present standards and be acceptable to the City Engineer. Commissioner Tarantino stated that through the public hearing notification process, the residents are given an opportunity to address the Commission and voice their concerns on a project during the Public Hearing. The applicant is then cognizant of what the potential problems and/or concerns of the neighborhood are, and is therefore, in most cases, willing to address those concerns prior to it developing into filing of a formal complaint in the future. Commissioner Willett inquired if after a designated period of time has passed and there have been no complaints, could the land use allowed under the CUP be considered as an allowable use under the code. Assistant City Attorney Moore responded that CUP's run with the land and is tied to that piece of property. The underlying use remains the same except for that CUP, and does not change the characterization of the land. Public Hearing Opened 7:15 No public input. Public Hearing Closed MSC (Willett~Thomas) 5-0-0-2 (Commissioners Aguilar and Ray absent) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCA-98-04, recommending that the City Council approve the amendment to Section 19.34.030 of the Municipal Code to allow drive-through fast food restaurants in the C-N zone through the conditional use permit process. Motion carried. Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - November 5, 1997 PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-98-02; Consideration of amendment to Section 19.58.147 of the Municipal Code to revise standards for large family day care - City Initiated. Background: Jeff Steichen, Assistant Planner reported that this is a proposal to amend Section 19.58.147 of the Municipal Code which outlines required standards for granting of a large family day care permit. These standards are based upon the California Health and Safety Code Section 1597.46, which gives local jurisdictions the ability to impose standards, restrictions and requirements concerning spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking, and noise control related to such homes. Staff is proposing amending three standards; they are: 1 2. 3. The distance separation requirement The temporary parking requirement The noticing radius distance Currently, the distance requirement is 1200 feet from another such facility on the same street. While reviewing an application, staff discovered that the applicant was within the 1200 foot, same street requirement, however, because of the street layout in the neighborhood, there could be three day cares within 300 feet and still be in compliance with current standards. Staff is recommending an additional requirement of 300 ft. separation distance from another such facility, which is not on the same street. It is staff's opinion that without this change, the neighborhood could be negatively impacted in terms of noise, traffic and congestion. Secondly, the temporary parking requirement is at least two vehicles for the safe loading and unloading of children. In most cases, the driveway in front of a two-car garage would satisfy this requirement. This standard does not prevent the owner from parking their own vehicles in the driveway during the day care hours of operation. Therefore, staff recommends requiring the owners to park their personal vehicles in their garage, and that the driveway area be free and clear for vehicles to drop off/pick up children during the day care hours of operation. Thirdly, current standards require noticing properties within 300 feet. Staff believes this can be reduced to a 100 foot radius, consistent with State Law. Public Hearing Opened 7:28 No public input Public Hearing Closed. Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - November 5, 1997 Commission Discussion: Chair Davis stated that she had a concern with some of the older neighborhoods not meeting the 19 foot length driveway requirement, and the older houses that do not have double-wide driveways. Assistant Planner Steichen noted that staff had checked the various neighborhoods cited by Chair Davis and found them in compliance with the 19 foot requirement. Ken Lee, Acting Planning Director stated that staff has considered the homes that have extra long single wide driveways allowing tandem parking of two vehicles, however, the concern is that the second vehicle would block the first. Most lots that have a single driveway have the width to widen the driveway. Commissioner O'Neill expressed concern with shortening the notification radius. The fact remains that a family day-care facility is a business, which potentially could impact the neighborhood. In addition, Commissioner O'Neill stated that because this is a business with potential safety issues, he would support the double driveway requirement, and not the single, tandem parking driveway. Director Lee stated that even though we can go through the CUP process, which would include noticing and a public hearing; if all of the standards are met, the State dictates that the application be approved. in addition, staff surveyed other jurisdictions in the County and found that they are in the process of streamlining the processing procedures by making them more ministerial, including the reduction or elimination of public noticing. MSC (O'Neill/Thomas) (Commissioners Aguilar and Ray absent) to approve PCA-98-02 amending staff's recommendation to reduce the noticing radius from 300 feet to 100 feet, making it a 200 foot noticing radius. Discussion on the Motion: Commissioner Tarantino asked what the impact would be in terms of City staff time, raising the radius by an additional 100 feet. Director Lee stated the impact would be inconsequential. The objective was to set it at 100 to be consistent with the State. Assistant City Attorney Moore stated that having different noticing requirements would not be problematic from a legal standpoint, as much as from a practical standpoint. Presently, the Coastal Act requires a 100 foot noticing. Normally, noticing requirements are either 100 or 300 feet; 200 feet would be somewhat different, and could create a practical problem. It is the Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - November 5, 1997 Attorneys office recommendation that the noticing requirement be changed to 100 to be consistent with State law. Chair Davis stated that local government does have the right to be more restrictive in some ways than State government. We have the right to have the 200 foot notice, if that is what we decide to do, even though the State only requires the 100 feet. MSC (O'Neill/Thomas) 5-0-0-2 (Commissioners Aguilar and Ray absent) amending the motion to approve PCA-98-02 with the amendment of maintaining the current noticing of properties within 300 feet of a proposed large family day care. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-98-01 - Consideration of amendments to the Municipal Code to allow the adoption and administration of an enhanced code enforcement program including the use of administrative citations - City Initiated. Background: Brad Remp, Assistant Director of Building and Housing reported that this is a follow-up item to the workshop that was held on October 1st. At that time, a number of items were identified and staff has incorporated them into the revised packet that is before the Commission tonight. Mr. Remp further stated that a detailed handout, in the form of flow charts, has been provided, outlining procedural steps. Included in the package is an example of a Notice of Violation form, and an Administrative Citation. Staff recognizes that as the City moves closer toward full implementation, it will necessitate substantially greater detail of the procedural steps. Staff's intent in providing the handouts to the Commission is to demonstrate the various tools that will be used by staff and the public, to acquaint them with the procedures that are being proposed. During the workshop session concern was raised regarding: 1) the need to insure violators are given appropriate notice and given the opportunity to appeal decisions made by code enforcement staff; 2) Emphasis was made as to the need to develop specific procedures for staff to follow; 3) the need to establish a Code Enforcement Manager position to supervise and oversee the day-to-day operations of the Code Enforcement Division; and 4) That the funds that may be recovered through code enforcement actions be available to further the code enforcement activities. Mr. Remp believes these immediate concerns have been addressed, and staff will continue to incorporate any future concerns that are raised by the Commission and City Council. In conclusion, Mr. Remp stated that this is a long-term program, which will require extensive review and fine-tuning between now and full implementation. It will take a consensus of all department heads to reach a level of confidence that both staff and public fully understand, have been trained, and are aware of all due process requirements incorporated in these procedures before we move forward with implementation. Planning Commission Minutes - 7 - November 5, 1997 Public Hearing Opened 7:44 Rod Davis, 233 Fourth Avenue, representing the Chamber of Commerce addressed some of the concerns the Chamber of Commerce Executive Committee had upon discussion of this item at their meeting earlier today. He stated that philosophically speaking, the Committee was concerned with any program where there is a perception that it is a self paying program. They were concerned with going from virtually no enforcement, to an over-regulated program. In addition, with so many violation throughout the City, who would make the decision which violations to target. The Chamber is also concerned with having proper representation and input from the public and that a "user-friendly" procedural manual be made available for public review. Public Hearing Closed 7:50 Commission Discussion: Commissioner Tarantino inquired if there is a way to address some of the concerns raised by Mr. Davis. Mr. Remp responded that there will definitely be an opportunity to have public input, and staff will take into account Mr. Davis' recommendations as to the make-up of the public review panel. Prior to this occurring, staff will be requiring all of the departments that will be involved in the program to establish a department procedures manual. In addition, staff will probably solicit input from various Boards and Commissions. Staff will make eve~ effort to, essentially, take two volumes of the Municipal Code and condense it into a notebook-type, comprehensive document. Staff is also cognizant that there will be revisions to the document after full implementation, and it is staff's intent to re-evaluate it within a year or so after full implementation. Commissioner Thomas stated that the intent of the program, and perception that the City should be striving for, is to implement a program that serves as a tool to assist those businesses that are in non-compliance to work towards bringing them into compliance. He also asked what is being done about having a condensed version, that is "user- friendly", specifically by members of the public? Mr. Remp stated that staff recognized the need to have a condensed notebook-type version that includes the enforcement methods, which identifies in detail the step that need to be followed in order to execute that particular method, in addition to what are the typical types of violations that would be appropriate for that particular method. Commissioner O'Neill clarified that we are not changing the codes or any ordinance; these tools are already in place, however, they are scattered throughout volumes of material. The intent is to streamline the enforcement tool, by way of the condensed, "one-stop-shopping~ version of the code enforcement program. This effort serves as a mechanism to abate existing violations that for too long have been overlooked, and to provide guidance in prevention of future violations. Planning Commission Minutes - 8 - November 5, 1997 Mr. Remp stated that it was a major effort to consolidate, as an example, the appeal process. There were several appeal processes spread throughout the book and often they conflicted. They have now been consolidated into one section so essentially, all the departments dealing with enforcement mechanisms will be following the same appeal process. In addition, Mr. Remp stated that staff is not changing any of the performance standards in the code, but only identifying new enforcement methods. Chair Davis commended staff for the work they have done in putting together this report. She noted that the revised packet addresses a lot of the concerns the Commission had raised and there has been significant change and positive improvements from the original packet. Commissioner Willett stated he attended the Chamber of Commerce Executive Committee meeting earlier that day and commended Mr. Remp for a job well done on the presentation of the proposed program. Mr. Willett summarized an outline he presented to the commission listing areas of concern and general comments; they are: - excellent flow-chart handout - suggest program be a computer-based support system to enable officer to access and show violator specific code while he is out in the field. ~ supports establishing a Policies and Procedures Manual - suggest hearing officer be a member of Attorney's office, not Building and Housing - suggest copy of specific code should begiven atthetime Notice of Violation isissued suggest copy of any State Codes referenced in the Municipal Code should be made available suggest using wording like "calendar work days" when specifying deadlines - concerned with reduction of the Boards of Appeals and Advisors' involvement in the appeals process. There should be a civilian oversight committee. concern with staff training concern with recording liens against properties; should be used as a last resort. Director Lee stated that both he and Mr. Remp would recommend that the program come back to the Planning Commission after a year of implementation with a report- card on how the program is working. Staff could also include input from the Chamber of Commerce and provide the Commission and the City Council with an update in an attempt to measure the program's success and what needs to be ironed out. Chair Davis stated that the program will address the 10% of violators who don't comply when they are noticed and will ensure that compliance takes place sooner than the present 90-day compliance deadline. In addition, nothing in this program precludes staff or the City Manager from recommending that the Appeals & Advisory Board be the hearing examiner, which would then incorporate civilian input. Commissioner Thon~as stated he supports recording a lien against a property because although it is a harsh measure, it is a direct result when all other measures have been exhausted in trying to correct violations, to no avail. Planning Commission Minutes - 9 - November 5, 1997 Chair Davis stated that the reason for the lien on the property is not only as a last effort to bring someone into compliance, but is also for those circumstances where the owner does not have the means to correct the problem. The lien then serves as a flag to the purchaser that there is an existing problem with the property. MSC (Thomas/Willett) 5-0-0-2 (Commissioners Aguilar and Ray absent) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCA -98-01 recommending the City Council adopt an ordinance to amend or repeal various existing ordinance sections and to add new Chapters 1.40 and 1.41 to the Chula Vita Municipal Code. Motion carried. UPDATE ON COUNCIL ITEMS Ken Lee reported there were two items that went to Council; the first one involved the evaluation of the sign regulations with emphasis on freeway signs. Secondly, on October 14, Council approved certain changes to current policy relating to public noticing procedures for land use hearing matters. At that time, Council also requested that prior to implementation, fiscal information be provided and brought back regarding the translating of the public notices into Spanish. Council also requested that staff prepare a trial program for the posting of notices at project sites. Staff intends to utilize a standardized 11 "x 17" notice in a card stock paper. DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Director Lee reviewed the schedule of meetings and stated that Rancho Del Rey was intending to have two items on the November 12th meeting, however, they are not ready, therefore, staff is recommending that it be canceled. Staff would like to have a workshop on November 19th for an update on major projects, with the time set for 6:00 p.m. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Chair Davis thanked staff for their hard work in putting together the Code Enforcement Program. In addition, on behalf of the Planning CommissiQn, she extended her congratulations to Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing, for being recipient of the Public Official of the Year Award in Washington D.C. Chair Davis acknowledged and welcomed the class that was sitting in the audience tonight. Commissioner Thomas stated that he hears stories about disgruntled applicants who go to the Chamber of Commerce to vent their frustration with the City when an unfavorable decision is made on their application and they didn't get beyond the first step. Commissioner Thomas asked if it would be possible for staff to provide the Commission with a list of applications that the City receives which describe the type of project that is being proposed and the decision that is rendered on the application. Director Lee stated that applicants always have a right to go before the Planning Commission to appeal an unfavorable decision. In addition, an applicant is able to voice their concerns during Oral Communications, both before this body, and the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes - 10 - November 5, 1997 Commissioner Willett stated that periodically he requests from, Com. Dev., Building and Housing, and the Planning Department, a copy of a project tracking list that each department compiles which could serve Commissioner Thomas' request. ADJOURNMENI' at 8:20 to the next regular Planning Commission meeting of December 10, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Diana Vargas, Secretary Planning Commission