Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 2007/03/14 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA 6:00 p.m. March 14, 2007 Council Chambers 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL / MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Members Present: Felber, Vinson, Moctezuma, Bensoussan, Tripp, Clayton, Spethman Staff Members Present: Jim Hare, Assistant Planning Director John Schmitz, Principal Planner Elisa Cusato, Deputy City Attorney III APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 14, 2007 MSC (Vinson/Bensoussan) (7-0) that the Planning Commission adopt the minutes of February 14, 2007 as submitted. Motion carried. ORAL COMMUNICATION: No public input. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA 06-02; Proposed amendments to Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.58.022 regulating Accessory Second Dwelling Units. Background: John Schmitz, Principal Planner gave an overview of the proposed amendments to the Accessory Second Dwelling Unit ordinance as presented in the staff report. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the adoption of the draft ordinance amending Section 19.58.22, with any additional amendments deemed appropriate. Commission Comments: 5:44:48 PM Cmr. Moctezuma stated that the two conflicting issues are whether ADU's are "granny flats" intended for use by a family member, or are they counted as part of the affordable housing stock. In her opinion, the owner-occupancy requirement goes hand-in-hand with the "granny flat" concept. Minutes of the Planning Commission - 2 - March 14, 2007 5:54:31 PM Cmr. Clayton stated she fails to see the rationale for requiring that parking screening be provided exclusively with walls, fences or gates, to the exclusion of landscaping. She indicated that the lack of space to construct a wall or fence could exclude a number of properties that would otherwise meet all other requirements, while landscaping could accomplish the same goal. John Schmitz pointed out that the draft ordinance is merely, a compilation of ideas and recommendations from staff and the community in an effort to minimize to the lowest extent the impact of ADU's on the residential zone. He further stated that the Commission has the prerogative to recommend adding, clarifying or deleting any number of the proposed requirements. 6:04:29 PM Cmr. Tripp cautioned against setting up conditions, Le. encroaching into the setbacks in order to meet parking screening requirements, that would trigger applying for a variance where hardship and reasonable use findings could not be made. 6: 1 0: 15 PM Cmr. Spethman stated that the Land Use Agreement, that is suppose ensure that all of the requirements under the new ordinance are met, in his opinion, is onerous to the property owner and should be part of the City's responsibility through the planning and building process. Mr. Schmitz responded that the intent behind this agreement is to memorialize all of the requirements in the ordinance to the present and any subsequent owners of that property because the agreement would be recorded on the title of the property. 6:14:31 PM Cmr. Felber asked for clarification on a number of issues, Le.: . Number of waste and recycling account . The two-car garage requirement in the event that the primary residence does not already have one . Do CC&R's in Otay Ranch preclude ASDU's? . Tandem parking 6:26:35 PM Public Hearing Opened. 6:27:34 PM Patricia Aguilar, stated that Crossroad II became involved in this effort at the request of Councilmember McCann. Fred Cowles of Crossroads II took on this challenge and volunteered to form a Task Force to look into this matter. The group met regularly with City staff and held workshops to solicit input from the community. Ms. Aguilar commended staff, specifically John Schmitz and Luis Hernandez, for their hard work and exemplary community outreach. 6:30:58 PM Fred Cowles stated that the State of California's decision relegated the R-1 zone to an R-2 zone. The Ordinance Amendments that staff is proposing are an excellent attempt to mitigate the ADU impacts and maintaining the integrity and character of the R-1 zone. Mr. Cowles further stated that they support the owner- occupancy requirement because it adds stability and maintains the pride of ownership on the property. Minutes of the Planning Commission - 3 - March 14, 2007 6:35:26 PM Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, gave a historical perspective as a resident of the N. Second Ave. neighborhood since the early 1960's. He stated that since then, the residents organized and opposed any attempt by developers to build multi-family units. The fear was that their neighborhood would be transformed into what North Park now is; a neighborhood with an over-saturation of apartment buildings. Mr. Watry stated that he supports staff's recommendations, specifically the owner- occupancy requirement, and urged the Commission and City Council to uphold its long history of a commitment to maintain the integrity of the single-family residential zone. 6:43:48 PM Margaret Tuite stated she supports the draft ordinance, especially the owner-occupancy requirement. Ms. Tuite indicated that her experience has been that the un-kept properties in her neighborhood have been those that are rentals. She urged the Commission to protect the character of the single-family neighborhood. 6:44:58 PM Kevin O'Neill, 621 Del Mar Avenue, gave a brief background of his involvement in precipitating the implementation of an ADU Ordinance. The impetus to this endeavor was the State of California's decision on the Santa Monica case, which, among other things, allows ADU's by right. He cautioned that, based on the research he has done, the owner-occupancy requirement would be indefensible in court. The important elements of the ordinance need to address setbacks, design compatibility with primary residence and parking. 6:55:04 PM Philip Lopez, 20 Second Avenue, stated that the proposed ADU amendment provides a reasonable compromise between the State mandates and the City's need to protect the R-1 zone. He further indicated he would like to see a 2 bedroom ADU be required to provide 2 parking spaces, as well as a limitation between the size of the lot and the size of the ADU. He commended staff for their effort in making this a participative process involving the community. 6:57:28 PM Frank Lazarro, 95 D Street, stated that an ADU was constructed next to his property and he was one who complained about the negative impact on his privacy and quality of life. For the most part he supports the draft ordinance amendments, however, he would like to see tighter language address sloping conditions going both ways. In his case, his property sits on higher ground and overlooks the roof top of the ADU, which involves a privacy issue. Another issue not mentioned in the draft ordinance is smoke- related impacts, i.e. when there is a fireplace and the ADU sits on lower terrain. 7:02:10 PM Mrs. Lazarro stated she supports the draft ordinance, however, wished to point out that the State's contention that ADU's help provide affordable housing, is not exactly accurate. The unit that was built next to their home is renting for $1,200 p/mo. Mrs. Lazarro stated that according to her research other jurisdictions have more stringent regulations that address blockage of light, views and chimneys. 7:04:51 PM Raul Tellez, 601 Palomar St. stated that just because there are a handful of poorly designed ADU's should not create a hardship on those that are yet to be built; those who find themselves in a true necessity to build an ADU for a family member who is disabled or an aging parent. The draft ordinance needs refinement and believes that the smaller size makes it too hard to provide adequate space for the disabled who have need of specialized equipment. Additionally, the owner-occupancy requirement needs to be reconsidered. Minutes of the Planning Commission - 4 - March 14, 2007 7:12:55 PM Darren Dalton, 325 Spruce St. stated he has an ADU, which is one that caused controversy because the unit sits on higher ground in a lot that has a steep slope. Mr. Dalton expressed his disagreement with the owner-occupancy requirement. As a career military person, he may receive orders for relocation in short notice. This requirement would force him to sell his property in a nearly impossible timeframe. This requirement creates an unreasonable hardship and undoubtedly would be challenged in court. Mr. Dalton is also concerned with the setback requirement, and with the 20% reclaimed unusable land. 7:18:38 PM Jose Alberti, 1133 Quinto Creek Place, Chair of the DRC offered the following comments: . that the key issue is design; the new structure needs to be compatible in design, color and materials with the existing residence. . supports the smaller unit size of 650 sf, which is adequate for a one bedroom granny flat. . opposes the owner-occupancy requirement. . Concurs with the State that ADU's are a means by which to create affordable housing. 7:20:16 PM Russ Hall, 59 Sierra Way, stated that whatever is adopted in the ordinance, must be enforceable and City staff needs to be able and willing to regulate it. Mr. Hall inquired how would the ordinance address and enforce the affordability of the units. Mr. Schmitz responded that nothing in the State law requires that that be a factor. Staff has never considered putting a rent control on these units. The issue of making these units compatible with neighborhoods was dealt with strictly from a land use and design standpoint. 7:30:54 PM Jerry Scott, stated he supports the draft ordinance amendment and indicated that his property has a 650 sf ADU, which is where his elderly parents-in-law lived and the size was more than adequate. 7:34:06 PM Public Hearing Closed. 7:34:20 PM Cmr. Bensoussan offered the following comments: . The visual impacts need to be considered not just from the public right-of-way, but the view from the surrounding neighbors as well. . higher density is more compatible the closer you move to the heart of downtown Third Avenue, in the heart of the urban core, in order to support the revitalization of downtown. . a good ordinance can make up for the fact that the State will not allow us to notify the surrounding neighborhood through the noticing process. . Would like to see tighter language stating that the use of landscaping is a means by which to address privacy issues when there is a reverse slope and you're looking down into your neighbor's backyard. 7:45:35 PM Cmr. Vinson stated he fails to see why there seems to be a pervasive thought in western Chula Vista that renters or rental property is seen as something negative and threatens the stability of R-1 zone, when in eastern Chula Vista, the developers are required to designate a percentage of their development to be high density rental property. Minutes of the Planning Commission - 5 - March 14, 2007 7:47:03 PM Cmr. Moctezuma stated that the issue on enforceability is a valid one and questions who would do the enforcing, particularly in the owner-occupancy requirement; she would be in favor of making special allowances to the owner-occupancy requirement for special circumstances, Le. those in the military. 7:51 :09 PM Cmr. Clayton stated she is reluctant to set up regulations that encourage people to circumvent or outsmart the system, in order to fulfill to the owner-occupancy requirement. As an example, she said that someone could place the tenant's name on the title and the original owner could move out. 7:55:29 PM Cmr. Spethman stated that the spirit of the ordinance is one of compatibility and blending in the R-1 zone with one of the biggest issues being design and parking. Mr. Spethman restated the language in the State's regulations, which states that, "... fees and requirements will not be arbitrary, excessive or burdensome so as to restrict the construction of a second unit." Cmr. Spethman offered the following comments: . does not share the opinion that rental property degrades the neighborhood . does not support the owner-occupancy requirement because its not enforceable and is an erroneous belief that it will ensure that pride of ownership will exist and the property will be kept up . opposes the requirement to have the accessory unit attached to the primary residence for the following reasons: o as long as you meet the setback and size, a pre-manufactured unit may conceivably be installed; how would you attach that structure to the existing one? o if you have a beautiful patio with outdoor kitchen and/or spa; how could you require that it be demolished in order to attach the unit? o there are communities being built in east Chula Vista that have detached ADU's called "casitas"; are we going to require the developers amend their development plans requiring the casitas to be attached? . 850 sf, is an adequate size for a young couple with a child, or an elderly couple or person that requires a wheelchair or motorized chair to get around. 8:08:25 PM Cmr. Tripp stated that there ought not to be any distinctions made in the R- 1 zone whether or not it is close to the urban core. The State has determined that ADU's are allowed by right and we need to put together a reasonable ordinance that is not unduly burdensome and does not micro-manage the construction of these units. 8: 16:41 PM Cmr. Clayton offered the following comments: . restated her concern with the enforceability issues over the owner occupancy- requirement; . a small size unit does not equal an affordable unit when there are 750 sf 2 bedroom apartments renting in eastern Chula Vista for $1,300; . all homeowners property rights needs to be considered and would like the regulation to better reflect the different scenarios regarding owner occupancy Le., is a derelict property the responsibility of an owner or is it a code enforcement issue; additionally, where are the private property rights when an owner may be forced into a distress sale to accommodate a familial emergency such as a military reassignment, death or illness. . Concern with requirement for wall or fence screening of parking. Minutes of the Planning Commission - 6 - March 14, 2007 8: 19: 12 PM Cmr. Felber; offered the following comments: . opposes the garage requirement where there isn't one on the primary home because it increases the density of the lot and reduces the overall open space feeling of the neighborhood; . concurs that the owner-occupancy requirement may cause an undo distress sale and, in his opinion, be construed as discriminatory because single residence owners are able to move out and rent their residence, but if there is an ADU's, this would not be allowed. 8:35:32 PM Cmr. Moctezuma offered the following comments: . it's very disturbing to her that the State has determined that the R-1 zone can be changed into R2 by allowing these units by right, . The distinction between a single residence property owner who decides to move out and rent his home is not the same as a property owner with an ADU renting both the primary home and the secondary home. With the former scenario, the R-1 zone is in no way being compromised, therefore, she supports the owner- occupancy requirement. 8:41 :50 PM Cmr. Bensoussan made the following comments: . the owner-occupancy requirement does not preclude the owner from renting out his house, it merely means that he has to live in one unit or the other. . supports the owner-occupancy requirement because, in her opinion, it is a disincentive to building these units for profit gain. . staff has gone through great lengths in considering all of the input from the community with respect to height, size, whether its attached or detached, garage requirements, etc.; its has all been considered taking into account what is in the best interest of preserving and minimizing to its fullest extend the impacts to the R-1 zone. 8:52:06 PM MSC (Vinson/Clayton) that the Planning Commission recommends adoption of the draft ordinance amending Section 19.58.022 with the following changes: . grandfather in the existing CUP's unless they apply for a new permit . remove the owner-occupancy requirement . remove the parking screening as it is previously regulated with landscape requirements only . allow the expansion of the BPA through regarding, but with a limit of 20% of the original buildable area; . remove the criteria that requires units on smaller lots to be attached. Cmr. Bensoussan offered an amendment to the parking screening requirement that it include the option to either fulfill this requirement through the use of landscaping or the construction of a wall. The maker and second of the motion accepted the amendment. Jim Hare asked for clarification on the motion concerning non-conforming situations. He indicated that existing regulations already covered that. Minutes of the Planning Commission - 7 - March 14, 2007 Cmr. Vinson amended his motion to deleting bullet point #1 from his original motion. Call For The Question by Cmr. Tripp. Vote on Call For The Question (4-3) with Commissioners Moctezuma, Bensoussan and Felber voting against it. Amended motion: MSC (Vinson/Clayton> (5-1-0-1) that the Planning Commission recommends adoption of the draft ordinance amending Section 19.58.022 with the following changes: . remove the owner-occupancy requirement . that parking screening may be provided through the use of landscaping or the construction of walls, fences, or gates; . allow the expansion of the BPA through regrading, but with a limit of 20% of the original buildable area; . remove the criteria that requires units on smaller lots to be attached. Motion carried with Cmr. Felber voting against the motion and Cmr. Bensoussan abstaining. Meeting adjourned at 10:05 to a regular Planning Commission meeting on March 28, 2007. ~~CVi.~ Diana Vargas 0 Secretary to the Planning Commission