Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-10-19 PC MINS MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Of the City of Chula Vista 6:00 p.m. Wednesday, October 19,2005 Public Services Building Council Chambers 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Members present: Cmr. Felber, Bensoussan, Cortes, Horn, Nordstrom, Tripp Member(s) absent: Madrid Staff members present: Jim Sandoval, Director of Planning & Building Luis Hernandez, Development Planning Mgr. John Mullen, Deputy City Attorney III MOTION TO EXCUSE: MSC (Cortes/Tripp) (6-0-1-0) to excuse Cmr. Madrid. Motion carried. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE and MOMENT OF SILENCE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 28, 2005. MSC (Tripp/Nordstrom) to approve minutes of September 28, 2005 as submitted. Motion carried INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Vice Chair Horn ORAL COMMUNICATION: No public input. 6:08:32 PM 1. ACTION ITEM: Direction on Policy Framework for Possible Amendment to Section 19.58.022, Accessory Second Dwelling Units. City Initiated. 6:11 :07 PM Cmr. Tripp disclosed that throughout the course of his career he has processed a number of accessory dwelling units. Additionally, he requested from staff a list of ADU's that have been processed since the adoption of the ordinance, and was provided a list of 69 addresses; four of which are problematic. He drove by the four that are problematic and some that are not, and took pictures from the public right-of-way. Background: Luis Hernandez delineated the history of what led to the adoption of the present ordinance in January 2003. His presentation included current development standards and proposed amendments in the following areas: · Size of ADU · Additional limitations on unit location · Parking requirements · Building setbacks · Building height Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 19, 2005 · Building separation · Open space · Design guidelines Mr. Hernandez reported that since the adoption of the ordinance, 69 ADU's have been built or are in the process of being built; notwithstanding, a significant number of complaints from area residents have been received. The issues of concern primarily relate to the proximity of the units to the adjacent properties, its size, and their effect in compromising the integrity of the single-family residential neighborhoods. Upon investigation of the complaints, staff found that all of the projects that have been approved for construction are in compliance with the adopted ordinance. In July 2005 the City Council directed staff to address the issues raised by the residents and to review the current ordinance and prepare potential modifications for their consideration. Mr. Hernandez stated that the purpose of tonight's meeting is to present the research that staff has done and potential amendments to the ordinance. One concept of significant importance is the realization that "one size unit does not fit all lots". Therefore, in relation to lot size and unit size, the following table depicts the existing regulations and the proposed changes: LOT CATEGORY Unit size for lots less than 5,000 sf Unit size for lots 5,000 to 6,999 sf Unit size for lots 7,000 to 19,999 sf Unit size for lots 20,000 sf or larger EXISTING ORDINANCE NOT ALLOWED 850 sf 850 sf 850 sf POSSIBLE AMENDMENT NOT ALLOWED 450 sf 650 sf 850 sf Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission consider the alternatives presented in the report and provide policy direction to staff. 6:32:54 PM Commission Comments: 6:33:08 PM Cmr. Felber inquired if it's possible to have a building cap on the number of units that can be built in a given time-period. John Mullen, City Attorney responded that according to State law a request to construct an ADU could be denied if findings could be made that its construction would have adverse impacts to public health, safety and welfare. Setting an arbitrary cap in the number of units that could be constructed in a given time-period would be in violation of State law. 6:36:06 PM Cmr. Bensoussan asked for clarification on what is being asked of the Commission following tonight's public testimony. Mr. Hernandez responded that the purpose of the meeting is to present staff's proposed amendments, to ensure that they are aligned with the Commission's wishes and to receive their input. Mr. Sandoval clarified that any comments or concerns that are raised tonight will be addressed in staffs report that will come back to the Planning Commission for their deliberation before it goes to Council. Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 19, 2005 6:40:31 PM Cmr. Tripp asked Counsel for a brief run-down on case law pertaining to owner-occupancy requirements for either the primary residence or the accessory unit and the ability to rent out either one of the units. Mr. Mullen responded that in the Santa Monica case, the City limited who could occupy the accessory unit. The Court of Appeals issues a published opinion invalidating that restriction and ruled that the city cannot regulate who occupies it. Mr. Mullen also stated he found no case law or opinions issued by the courts with respect to the primary residence. Cmr. Tripp inquired if staff had a sense of what percentage of the subdivided lots in the west side of the City are 7,000 sf, 10,000 sf and 20,000 sf. Mr. Hernandez responded he did not have a good sense of the percentage breakdown, however, 7,000 sf lots are very typical in western Chula Vista. 6:55:45 PM Cmr. Hom asked what, if any, are the noticing requirements. Mr. Hernandez stated that presently there is no noticing requirement because the applications are processed ministerially. As long as the criteria set out in the ordinance are met, the building permits will be issued. This is a policy matter that is within the Commission's purview to direct staff to look into establishing a noticing requirement. In Cmr. Madrid's absence, she asked Cmr. Hom to inquire if the applications for ADU's could be brought before the Planning Commission for approval. Mr. Sandoval responded that under the new State law, local jurisdictions have lost their ability to review these applications as discretionary permits and the law requires that they be handled through a ministerial process. 7:01 :33 PM Public Hearing Opened. 7:01 :57 PM Frank Luzzaro, 95 D St., Chula Vista (next door to 97 D St., in process of acquiring permits to build an ADU) read into the record a portion of the current ordinance, which addresses the issue of existing non-conforming lots. Mr. Luzzano questioned why the City is allowing units to be built on existing non-conforming lots such as the one at 97 D Street. He further stated that if this unit is allowed to be built, with its narrow side yard setbacks, it will mean that the new structure will be 5 feet away from his line of sight from his property. Mr. Luzzaro stated he has retained an attorney to help him fight this and asked that staff answer why the ADU at 97 D Street is being allowed. John Mullen cautioned that discussion of any item or specific project that is not on the agenda is in violation of the Brown Act. He clarified that what's been noticed in the agenda is the consideration of general requirements and the Commission's recommendations with respect to the Accessory Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance. 7:10:18 PM Susan Luzzaro, 95 D Street, Chula Vista, stated she did not hear in staff's presentation anything about topography, which is of great importance. Additionally, there needs to be a means by which to verify that the ADU is compatible with the primary residence with respect to design, color and materials. Mrs. Luzzaro stated that in her research she has found that other jurisdictions have placed a minimum distance requirement from where one ADU may exist from another. She strongly opposes lifting of any parking requirements. Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 19, 2005 7:13:59 PM Kevin O'Neill, 621 Del Mar Ave., Chula Vista, offered the following comments I recommendations: · If off-street parking is behind a gate; a requirement should be that it be operated by remote control · Staff should provide a courtesy notice to residents within 100 feet radius, succinctly describing what project entails (size, design, color, and materials) · Can't limit to 5000 sf lots or greater because if FAR and lot coverage allows a second story addition, you can't keep them from making that second story a second unit. · Parking requirements need to be upheld to present standards regardless of whether the house is non-conforming. 7:19:51 PM Jose Orizaga, 323 Spruce, Chula Vista; lives down the slope from where the ADU is in process of construction. Opposes its construction because of the many impacts it will have on his property; mainly, rainwater run-off, privacy issues, and parking. Says it will negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. 7:24:18 PM William Yancey Sr., 305 Spruce Street, Chula Vista, gave a brief historical context of the neighborhood he takes pride in, having bought his home in 1968. He urged the Commission to carefully consider the recommendations they will bring forth as it relates to the proposed ordinance amendment and how their recommendations for setting policies affect people's lives. 7:28:03 PM Linda Yancey, 311 Spruce St., Chula Vista, addressed the 325 Spruce project, stating she is disheartened to learn that no one from the City did a site visit when the applicant submitted his proposal to build the ADU. If they had done so, they would have seen the constraints of the lot, Le. topography, access, parking and privacy issues impacting the surrounding neighbors. Ms. Yancey stated she built an accessory unit, but before she even submitted plans to the City she first ensured that she had the support of her neighbors; she explained to them what her plans were. When construction was complete, there were no visible impacts to the surrounding neighborhood; her unit was compatible not only with the main residence, but with the surrounding neighborhood. At minimum, the neighbors whose properties abut where the new structure is being proposed must be notified. 7:31:32 PM Mike Spethman, 616 Claire Ave., Chula Vista, stated he too built an 850 sf ADU. Presently, the City has regulations that require that the unit be compatible with the primary residence and character of the surrounding neighborhood, however, to look at the end-product on many of these units, they look as though they were allowed to be built with no oversight from the City. Mr. Spethman stated that issuance of any building permits for an ADU must be contingent upon any existing non-conforming issues whether they be structural or related to parking must be brought into conformance concurrently with the construction of the new addition. Mr. Spethman urged the Commission to uphold the 850 sf requirement otherwise if its lowered, it will create a scenario that enables a two-car garage to be converted into living area. 7:36:34 PM Pam Buchan, 532 Hibiscus Ct., Chula Vista, submitted a letter in which she points out some of her concerns as well as an attachment of the City of Vista's ADU Ordinance, which addresses affordability requirements. She also questioned why the City appears to be waiving the existing requirements on the books with respect to bringing the existing structures into compliance before they are granted building permits. Mr. Sandoval clarified a couple of issues that were raised, the first one being that the language in the ordinance regarding non-conformity is referring to structures, not the lot itself. Pursuant to Planning Commission Minutes -5- October 19, 2005 the Subdivision Map Act, you can have a legal lot that doesn't meet the Subdivision Act standards, but its still a legal lot. The reason is that when it's a structural non-conformance, you have the ability to bring it into conformity, however, with regard to lot width, you cannot make a 50 foot wide lot any wider. Secondly, the City has the ability notice a proposal for an ADU, however, because it is ministerially processed and not a discretionary permit, a public hearing of the Planning Commission or Design Review Committee cannot take place. One option that has been tried in another jurisdiction is to request that the applicant post the site with a brightly-colored notice in the front of his property informing his neighbors of his intent. 7:44:17 PM Fred Kohls, 685 Oaklawn Ave., Chula Vista, representing Crossroads II walked through a Power Point presentation and issues paper; it pointed out: · "... a permitted atrocity" (i.e. 325 Spruce Street ADU) · Not all ADU's are bad; sample of conscientious planning and following the rules (i.e. Mr. Spethman's ADU) · Exciting times in planning for Chula Vista's future, i.e. GPU · Preserve sanctity of Single-Family Residential neighborhood Focus on major issues; they are: · Require neighbor notification at the time application is submits (be a good neighbor) · Develop a Design Standards Manual and refine and tighten-up the requirements · The present ordinance gives the Zoning Administrator authority to approve design proposals and in the absence of notification requirements, this would mean that there would be DRC review only if there are disputes between the applicant and the ZA. · The Planning Director ought not to be able to waive standards; if standards cannot be met, a permit should not be issued. · Permitting process should include notification, city inspection of the property should be made to confirm the property is able to meet all of the requirements, prior to taking in the application and beginning permitting process · Institute inspection fee to cover this requirement · Upon inspection of property, should any non-conforming issues be found, inspector should provide a list to the applicant · As part of the permitting requirements, owner-occupancy must be required in either the main residence or the ADU · Limit size to 650 sf or 50% of primary residence (agree with staff's recommendation of having a graduated scale according to lot size) · Setbacks for ADU should be the same as that of the main structure · Current ordinance requires one additional parking space per ADU; we recommend one additional parking space per bedroom · Same height requirements as primary unit is insufficient · Remove from ordinance the allowance of second property address · Revised ordinance should prohibit use of easements for access to the ADU · City should temporarily freeze permits that have been issued on properties or plans that cannot meet the basic requirements · No deviation or variance to ordinance 8:01 :37 PM Public Hearing Closed. Planning Commission Minutes -6- October 19, 2005 Commission Discussion: 8:03:14 PM Cmr. Tripp stated it has been his personal experience that no matter how well an ordinance or development standards are crafted, they apply to approximately 90% of the cases, Le. only 4 out of the 69 that have been built in Chula Vista have been problematic due to unforeseen lot conditions with extreme topographic variations. As previously stated, the City has been preempted by the State and cannot require a discretionary permitting process for ADU's. His experience in assisting people through both the discretionary and ministerial process, recognizing the need for balance in both, in his opinion, whenever a homeowner is attempting to do something to his property, anytime it can be done ministerally; is a blessing. 8:10:46 PM Cmr. Nordstrom. stated that this is too big and important of an issue to attempt to come up with a recommendation tonight. Cmr. Nordstrom indicated he would like to have staff compile a comprehensive document that includes their recommendations and response to comments taken from tonight's public testimony and to allow the Commission time to review and digest its content to be able to come back with an informed, thought-out recommendation to Council. 8:12:14 PM Cmr. Felber offered the following recommendations: · Increase the side yard setback on both sides to 10 feet from the property line · Require applicant notify area residents of his intent to construct an ADU · Implement owner-occupancy in one of the units · Don't waive parking requirement even for small units (on site parking) · Requiring a garage to be built in order to fulfill off-street parking requirements is not necessarily the best option because you are increasing building mass · Require installation of remote operated gate control for off-street parking · Give an intermediate option to larger lots in excess of 15,000 sf to have a 450 sf detached ADU or a 650 sf attached ADU 8:28:39 PM Cmr. Bensoussan stated that staffs presentation was insightful and offered good recommendations. She would like to see the ordinance amendment include: · An owner-occupancy requirement of the main residence · Would like to see language in the ordinance addressing negative impacts on historical structures as grounds for disallowing ADU's. · In the absence of DRC approval, a staff member with expertise in design and architecture should be part of the review process · The establishment of design guidelines manual should address such things as topography, landscaping, and fencing. · There should be no separate address (both units must be under the same address). · Essential to have some kind of notification. · Look into having a cap on number of units that can be built. · Concurs with Cmr. Felber's comments regarding not requiring a garage on the smaller lots. 8:38:06 PM Cmr. Cortes stated he concurs with Cmr. Nordstrom's comments regarding staff's preparation of a comprehensive report to be considered later. 8:38:43 PM Cmr. Hom stated he would like to tighten up the language in the ordinance to address that no separate metering be allowed on the ADU. Cmr. Hom stated he supports requiring the applicant notify his neighbors of his intent to develop his property. Concurs with many of the fine comments already offered by other members, Le. not requiring the garage on smaller lots, but requiring on-site parking. Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 19, 2005 MSC (Bensoussan/Nordstrom) (6-0-1-0) to continue this item to allow staff time to respond to the comments and come back with a comprehensive report and set of recommendations. Motion carried. Director's Report: Mr. Sandoval reviewed the upcoming two-month calendar in which has slated various special meeting regarding the General Plan Update. Commission Comments: 8:43:39 PM Cortes made some brief comments about the meeting he attended with Councilmember Castaneda, Cmr. Nordstrom, City staff, and representatives from the check cashing industry. The meeting was very informative and there was a spirit of cooperativeness and willingness from both parties to work together on issues surrounding these establishments. 8:46:17 PM Meeting adjourned. Submitted by: