Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1986/10/22 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING Tape #274 OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF Side 2; 0-1757 CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:10 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, October 22, 1986 ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Cannon, Carson, Green, and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Shipe, and Grasser (with notification) STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, City Traffic Engineer Glass, Assistant City Attorney Gill PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman pro Tempore Green and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chairman Pro Tempore Green reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Tugenberg/Carson) 5-0 to approve the minutes of the meeting of September 17, 1986, as mailed. ORAL CO~qUNICATIONS Mr. C. Holt reproved the Planning Commission because only four members were present on such a controversial issue, plus the fact that the meeting did not start at 7:00 p.m. as advertised. Commissioner Cannon stated that he would accept the blame for the meeting starting late since he had been at another meeting, was delayed, and had arrived as quickly as possible and this was the first time that he had been late in 4 years. Principal Planner Lee noted that Commissioners Cannon and Green had a conflict of interest on Item 2, PCZ-8?-A-M; therefore, the item would be continued to the meeting of November 5, 1986, for lack of a quorum. The same situation occurring with Item 3, Public Hearing PCZ-87-B, which had been continued from the previous meeting, the applicant elected to take the matter directly to Council. MSUC (Cannon/Carson) to file PCZ-87-B. Planning Commission - 2 - October 22, 1986 Chairman Pro Tempore Green announced that the hearing for the San Diego Country Club has been continued to the meeting of November 5, 1986, and possibly to the meeting of November 19, 1986. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-86-7; Consideration of amendments to Title l0 and Title 19 of the Municipal Code by including boats, trailers, campers, and items of a similar nature in the definition of "vehicle" as it relates to existing regulations regarding the parking storage, and repair of vehicles on public and private property Principal Planner Lee said that in 1985 Council expressed concern about the adequacy of the current ordinances dealing with campers, cars, trucks, and boats on private property and referred the matter to the Planning Commission. At the meeting of February 26, 1986, the Planning Commission decided that the proposed draft ordinance was unacceptable as written. Council continued the item and requested that a task force be formed to work with the ordinance. A workshop group of 15 citizens has been working on this since June 1986. They held a public hearing on September 22 and the Planning Commission is being asked to endorse the proposed amendments this evening. With the use of slides illustrating common parking problems now in existence in Chula Vista, Mr. Lee gave a synopsis of the pertinent changes to the ordinance. Section 10.52.040 - Parking within the parkway. He noted that the parkway area was the area between the sidewalk and the curb which varies from 7 to 12 feet throughout the City. In the newer sections monolithic pavement makes it non-existent. The present ordinance prohibits the parking of a vehicle within this area but the proposed ordinance expands the definition and clarifies the application of this section. Section 10.52.090 - Commercial. The present ordinance restricts parking of commercial vehicles in excess of lO,O00 lbs. for more than 5 hours in a residential district. This ordinance has been unclear whether parking on is intended. The proposed amendment increases private or public property vehicular weight to 12,000 lbs., specifies the vehicles are being used for commercial purposes and covers public and private property. Vehicles used for servicing or loading and unloading are exempt. The unhooking of trailers, in either commercial or industrial areas, is already covered in the Code limiting the time to 72 hours on a public street. This has not been changed. Section 10.84.020 - Prohibition of parking on private property. Under the present Code, parking is limited to a paved area designated for i,arking. The proposed ordinance would add trailers, boats, RVs and campers, and would allow parking on a dust-free area within lO feet of a driveway. Provisions are also included to permit the Zoning Administrator to specify alternative areas for parking. Unmounted campers and shells would not be allowed in the front yard longer than 72 hours. This 3-day period is so any maintenance or repair work can be completed. The proposed draft makes it legal to locate several vehicles and/or boats in the front yard as long as not more than 50% of the front yard is utilized for parking or maneuvering. Any parking away from the Planning Commission - 3 - October 22, 1986 driveway area, however, would require a separate review by the Zoning Administrator with submission of a site plan. Section 10.84.030 - Citation authority. Vehicles illegally parked on private or public property could be given a ciLation after 72 hours an increase of 48 hours over the original draft amendment. The item has been expanded to include the parking areas. Section 19.58.260 - Repair/storage of vehicles. Presently, repair or storage of vehicles is restricted to the inside of an enclosed garage. The proposal would clarify the ordinance to include car ports and delete the requirement for a totally enclosed garage; outside storage in the front is limited to 72 hours; and the repairs would include trailers as well as cars. Section 19.62.110 - Limit to areas used. The proposed ordinance would allow the Zoning Administrator to approve parking on the opposite side of the lot from the driveway. Section 19.62.150 - Residential-parking in front and elsewhere. The proposed ordinance change is for clarification only and pertains to the 50% maximum use. Section 19.62.200 Enforcement. In the draft, a new chapter has added citation powers to the Zoning Enforcement Officers after a 72-hour warning period. Section 19.70.02. This section was not included by the Committee in its review as it refers to the Montgomery area. Section lO of the Municipal Code applies to Montgomery, whereas changes to Section 19, the Zoning Regulations, would not apply since Montgomery is still governed by the County Zoning Regulations. Staff, however, has researched the effects of the proposed amendments to Section 19 and finds that they should apply to Montgomery to avoid conflicts with existing County sections. Therefore, it is deemed necessary to amend two of the County ordinances: Sections 6799 and 6783. These ordinances prohibit parking of commercial vehicles over one ton in weight in residential areas and prohibits parking in front or exterior side yards. These laws have not been enforced, but are in place. Staff proposes repealing these two sections and applying the regulations in Section 19 to avoid confusion. Mr. Lee went on to say that a parking synopsis study of the various municipalities has been included 'n the acket; and a spokesperson from the Community Appearance Committee is lpresentPto give comments on the Committee's position. He noted that a copy of a newsletter authored by Mr. Hale Newcomb had been received. He pointed out that although Mr. Newcomb has attended many of the meetings, he apparently was confused regarding the ordinance as presently drafted. The letter warns people that it is prohibited for property owners to park in the side, rear, or front yard setbacks. Mr. Lee pointed out that October 22, 1986 Planning Commission - 4 - Section 10.84.020 retains the ability to park up to 50% of the width of the lot and in the front setback which is the area between the dwelling and the property line and usually extends about 20-25 feet. In addition, if parking is within lO feet of the driveway, there is no prohibition in parking in the rear or the sideyard; the statement that a fee and variance are required to park away from the driveway is not true; parking more than lO feet from the driveway requires evaluation by the Zoning Administrator by filing a site plan, but no cost is involved. If one wanted to park in a situation contrary to the ordinance, then a variance would have to be filed. For example, covering over 75% of the lot would require a variance. In response to a question from the Chairman about an ordinance expected from the Safety Commission, Mr. Lee replied that the recommendation from the Safety Commission regarding RVs parking on the street would proceed separately to Council and would not be coming through the Commission for action. Director of Planning Krempl explained further that the Safety Commission held a public hearing earlier this month and decided to drop one of the proposed ordinances so the current regulation regarding street parking remains unchanged. Chairman Pro Tempore Green said that he wished the audience to understand that the Planning Commission was not involved in the drafting of the proposed ordinance; it was drafted by staff with the assistance of the Task Force. The Commissioners saw the proposed ordinance for the first time on Friday when they received their packets. Their duty is to review it, receive testimony and to make recommendations to Council. Chairman Green continued that he intended to listen to people speak and to treat them all with respect, he expected the same from the audience, and would appreciate keeping the meeting on a high level. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mary Helvie, one of the members of the Community Appearance Task Force, noted that the Task Force had been meeting every other week for the past 6 months at the direction of Council; it is the consensus of the Committee that it has done its best to try to represent all property owners in the City including those who own recreational vehicles. They realize, however, that everyone cannot be satisfied, but hope the majority will benefit from the final ordinance as it is recommended. Ms. Helvie said that the Committee feels the Zoning Administrator needs to address individual cases with specific authority to approve parking on the opposite side of the lot with no fee involved in cases where the homeowner/RV owner is unable to abide by the ordinance as written due to the physical layout of his or her property. Ms. Helvie then introduced the members of the Committee. Chaiman Green commended the Committee on the fine work that they have done. Hale E. Newcomb, 515 Elm Avenue, Chula Vista, representing 1,?O0 members of the Good Sam Club, 350 signatures plus self = 2,050 people, remarked that the two proposed ordinances were not available for him to comment on at the time the newsletter was written; he did not feel he has falsely represented any of October 22, 1986 Plannin9 Commission - 5 - the issues, and he had encouraged other people to come and to form their own opinions. Referring to the proposed ordinance, page 2, item 10.84.020, subsection 3, Mr. Newcomb stated this item refers to parking within 10 feet of the driveway; however, the lead-off paragraph eliminates 95% of the people from utilizing this by excluding parking in the setbacks; that since parking in the setbacks is prohibited, parking within lO feet of the driveway can be done only if the driveway is 35 feet or more in length. Section 19.62.110 restricts access to places available otherwise for parking by prohibiting crossing a setback. Commissioner Cannon pointed out in Section 10.84.020 the phrase, "except as follows" indicates that parking is permitted within that setback under four separate circumstances and that Section 19.62.110, also contains the requirements "except as follows." Returning again to 10.84.020, Mr. Newcomb pointed out that parking was forbidden in the setback area by the driveways. Again, Commissioner Cannon explained that parking may be in a dust-free area adjacent to a driveway and that such parking is allowed within the setback when it is within the l0 feet area of the driveway. Mr. Newcomb then pointed to Section 19.62.150 as precluding use of these same setbacks for parking and also restricting maneuvering in them. Chairman Pro Tempore Green attempted to clarify for Mr. Newcomb, that, again, this item was qualified by the use of the term, "except as follows" which permitted maneuvering in this area. Mr. Newcomb again referred to Section 10.84.020, subparagraph 4, as prohibiting parking on private property on the opposite side of the lot from the driveway. He noted that site approval could be requested from the Zoning Administrator, but the chance of approval being received was slight since the apparent move was to get the RVs off property. He stated he had polled 100 houses, that only 8 of these homes have more room adjacent to the driveway than on the driveway; 31% of the driveways are less than 20 feet long while most RVs are in excess of 20 feet thereby eliminating use of the driveways; 42% have room on the opposite side from the driveway and this would be much higher if the setback were authorized for use; 35% of these homes have one or more of the targeted vehicles of this ordinance; and if parking were permitted on the private property identified as the setback, 87% of the homes could accommodate RVs. He urged all items in the ordinance where the word "setback" is written be removed. Mr. Newcomb declared that he was representing 2,050 persons who want authority to park on their private, fully-taxed property within any setback; assurance that any site plan will be granted unless 50% of the neighbors protest it; site plan approval to be permanent or for the duration of the present resident; a moratorium or waiver on all fees for 2 years on an appeal for variance regardless of how high in the City it must be appealed; a grandfather clause on existing off-street parking as is; he noted that Coronado permits RVs to park on private property and allows 7 days for motorhome parking; and suggested that example be followed. He pointed out that records show RVs parked in storage are prime targets for theft and use for transportation of illegal aliens. He requested that the Chairman take a poll and see how many feel the way he does. October 22, 1986 Planning Commission - 6 - Chairman Green asked how many were against the ordinance as written. A preponderance of hands were raised. He then asked now many were for the ordinance, approximately 15 raised their hands. The Chairman remarked that he given Mr. Newcomb a long speaking time as he was a spokesman for many people. He requested that other speakers keep their remarks under 5 minutes. Lane Cole, 273 Corralwood Court, Chula Vista, said he was very much in favor of the proposed position with relation to repair of cars and would really like to see it go forward; that the regulations that have been developed regarding RVs in the parking area are very generous. Howard M. Fousie, 202 East "J" Street, Chula Vista, representing 100 people, said he had helped draft the ordinance; not to be deceived by the number of people that raised their hands and what he would really like to know is how many people signed a green slip. The reply was several. Mr. Fousie pointed out that there were 300-400 people who had opposed the original ordinance and only one or two people who had appeared before Council in 1981 and started the entire movement. He said he would support the proposed ordinance, but he would not like to see any RV owner pushed away because he is unable to comply with the ordinance because of the way his home is laid out. He said many of the RV owners do not have much money; and should be able to have a boat or an RV on their own property without neighbors complaining. He applauded the fact that the 3-hour time limit on parking had been done away. In response to Chairman Green's question regarding the Zoning Administrator being empowered to give special consideration to anyone who is unable to meet this ordinance for reasons beyond his control, Mr. Fousie said that would be very acceptable. He pointed out that Mary Helvie is unable to meet the conditions as required because her RV sticks out over the sidewalk. He noted that Planning had been very generous and thanked and congratulated Mr. Lee and Mr. Krempl whom he said had listened, had gone overboard to help and had gotten some "awful chewing out." He sat down after a final statement that this ordinance is better now that it originally was. Donna Willett, 97 Montebello, Chula Vista, spoke in favor, saying that Chula Vista is becoming cluttered with cars, trucks, and RVs and the cleaning up has to start somewhere. She commented on the fact that the RV owners were very organized, whereas ordinary people like herself were not. Therefore, they were often afraid to speak out in favor of something in view of the large number of people opposing an item. She stressed that cooperation between RV owners and non-RV owners was necessary. Tom Davis, 1657 Gotham Street, Chula Vista, said he was the only one on the Task Force without an RV; he was speaking in favor of the ordinance and the effort of the Task Force to intelligently and rationally approach the problems was exemplary; and he recommended the wording and the intent of the ordinance. Don Jennings, 281 East Millan Street, Chula Vista, commented that this is a case of one group imposing its aesthetic tastes on another and there are no Planning Commission - 7 - October 22, 1986 safety or health issues involved; just some people who don't like RVs. He stated he becomes concerned when people say "this is a better ordinance than it used to be"; that such philosophy condones someone threatening his life so that he would be grateful if they only cut off his arm. He asked about enforcement procedures, stating that Section 19.62.200 mentions that a warning shall be issued on the first violation and asked if that meant that 3 or 4 years later if the violation is again committed, the car can be towed away because a warning had been issued previously. He expressed great concern about the complaint system style of enforcement saying that we give a people quite a tool with which to harass their neighbors through such an ordinance; we like to assume that it will only be used for legal means, but there is no control over who is using it for harassment purposes or where they actually live; that this becomes a problem when there is an ordinance that can be selectively enforced. Chairman Green said he had a stack of "speaking requests," however, since he was not certain if they were just a means of registering approval or an actual wish to speak, he was not going to use them. He asked that persons wishing to testify approach the podium. Ron Livingstone, 100 Woodlawn Ave., Sp. 3, Chula Vista, asked why the ordinance restricting parking on the street would not be brought up at this time and for clarification of the present ruling about parking RVs on the street. Assistant City Attorney Gill replied that if the vehicle is licensed by the State, there is a 72-hour parking limit unless the vehicle presents a particular safety hazard like parking in front of a hydrant. In a case where a vehicle becomes inoperable and a "carcass", it is no longer considered a vehicle but a safety hazard and may be towed away. Director of Planning Krempl explained that the Safety Commission had entertained an amendment to limit the parking time to 3 hours instead of 72 hours, but that proposed amendment has been dropped. Charles Mantz, 486 Welton St., Chula Vista, noted that he had presented the Montgomery Planning Committee copies of the Euclid, Ohio case in which the Supreme Court upheld a decision that it is unconstitutional for a municipality to regulate the parking of RVs and not the parking of other vehicles; that the ordinance or statute must reasonably tend to correct some "evil" and the city must establish that it is acting in response to a "dire necessity" or to prevent a crisis condition. Mr. Mantz referred to the Community Appearance Program, citing that his RV is in better condition inside and out than many of the homes of Chula Vista. He pointed out that in case of a disaster such as a major earthquake, all the motorhomes had generators that could furnish electricity and they had tanks holding accessible, pure water. He reminded the Commission that ownership of an RV did not signify wealth in the owner; asked that the Commission not remove this economical means of enjoyment from him and other retired persons who had served their country faithfully in their youth and asked only to be permitted to live their remaining years in what enjoyment was available. Planning Commission - 8 - October 22, 1986 William Rambur, 325 East James St., representing Travelling Troys Retired Officers Association, noted that when he first went on the Community Appearance Program Committee, he was extremely opposed to the regulation of motorhomes as had been described to him, namely that the ordinance would restrict totally all motorhomes in the City of Chula Vista. Because the Committee was named Community Appearance Program, he felt that something was considered wrong in the appearance of the motorhomes and objected to that very vehemently throughout the entire proceedings. However, because he was also a homeowner who wanted his private property to be held in high esteem, yet didn't want any grandfather clause that would prohibit an eventual buyer from being able to have a motorhome on the premises, he kept those factors in mind and tried to enhance both of them while working on the ordinance. Mr. Rambur commented that quite obviously the proposed draft would not satisfy everybody since writing an ordinance to cover every situation is an impossibility. The Committee has drafted an ordinance that he feels will be acceptable to nearly everyone. The ordinance as presented can accommodate most cases. For those be able to get some kind of permanent exceptions, he expressed hope they will variance so that a change in Council membership will not cause them to lose their right to have an RV on their property. He noted that even though staff said they would take the exceptions under consideration and would allow for variances, that people get scared that once the law is in effect, no other variances would be granted or they would be too costly. Pat Kelley, 1425-220, Sp. 342, announced that she was running for City Council and had been asked by many seniors to help them retain their campers and RVs. They are under the impression they will not be allowed to keep their camper shells if they are removed for any reason. Mary Helvie stated that there was one area the Committee was unable to resolve. Her home is on a cul-de-sac and there is no way she can accommodate an RV on her property. Her RV is currently in the driveway which is so short that even longer trucks hang over it. She is at the end of the cul-de-sac and een the subject of a complaint nor has she complained about the ha.s never b. m.... -'---' ....r~--on asked if it w. ould be helpful ed. Ms. Helvie acquiesced. She noted that she had objected to the as draft ....... 4.. ..... ~a -~+hinn to do with community f the Committee oecause ~ne u~'um,~-~: -~ ..... = . . n~a.m.e~,~o~,~o Sh~ referred to the proliferation of gara. ge .sale. slg~ns,_,.d_rl_ve.w~ay~s ~"~'th ~ucks or 4 or 5 cars, the three streel~ c,ean~ng ~ruc~ every weekend, all weekend on Naples Street, saying that there are many eyesores in the City a Community Appearance Program should attack rather than RVs. Alex Pressutti, 917 Nolan Way, identified himself as a member of the Committee and said that the ordinance has been mitigated by removing statements such as "commercial vehicles including motorhomes"; if the ordinance is voted down, "we are back at the beginning" and urged adoption of the ordinance as presented. October 22, 1986 Planning Commission - 9 - Wayman Wiser, 85 Oxford, expressed concern regarding Section 10.52.490, (Commercial vehicles parking in residential areas) saying he was part owner of a vehicle in which the truck cost $79,200, the trailer - $45,000, or a total of $124,200 for the initial cost. Payments for the last 5 years have been at $1,700 per month on the truck alone. The cost for PUC is $500 a month plus 10% of the gross. He pays $11,000 a year for insurance. The fuel tax in California alone is 20~ on the gallon and the truck travels between the east and west coast, paying fuel tax in every state. At the end of the 5-year period, the truck has cost approximately $102,000 with tax and interest. Now he is being told that he cannot park his own vehicle in his own driveway behind a 6-foot fence. Commissioner Cannon pointed out that the current Code restricts commercial vehicles in excess of lO,O00 lbs. parking in residential districts for more than 5 hours. Mr. Wiser replied that the vehicle was on private property behind a 6-foot fence, was hand-washed once a week, hand-waxed once a month and was better, in appearance than many homes in the neigilborhood. Commissioner Cannon explained that what was in front of the Commission was a limited alteration of the existing law, increasing the weight of the truck to 12,000 lbs. Mr. Wiser said the truck hauls produce in and out of Chula Vista, he is barely making a living now with the costs involved, and requested the Commission to remember that in Chula Vista "we are blue collar workers." Bob Greenwald, 630 Garrett Ave., indicated he had served on the Community Appearance Program Task Force and expressed concern about homes built with a 20-foot setback; the possibility of getting a variance with a two-car garage and a 20-foot driveway and the fact that if a lO-foot driveway were to be placed alongside, over 50% of the 50-foot lot would be utilized. Mary Helvie said the Committee had endeavored to address the problem of an independent trucker parking a commercial vehicle (just the tractor) for 72 hours for servicing, but it didn't get in the ordinance. Vernon Jenson, 718 Madison Ave., asked why junk cars were placed in the same category as motorhomes. He would vote for getting rid of junk cars. He commented on the Mayor's pride in the Marina versus the restrictions in the ordinance making it impossible to have a boat or a motorhome on his property. Leonard Applewhite referred to the last page of the ordinance saying, "I am in the 'not permitted' situation." His motorhome is parked in the front yard, parallel to the street because there is no place alongside the driveway. He has a lO0-foot driveway with an attached car garage all the way in the back and has to move cars all the time in the driveway. His property is in the older part of the City. Hal Fousie remarked that the Commission had problems with community enhancement. He suggested that the City appoint a Community Enhancement Task Force and take up some of the problems with graffiti, hedges, and trees. He stated that Mary Helvie and he had fought hard for the truck drivers, that some allowance should be made for them because of the exorbitant cost of storing one of them. He complained that nine new storage yards had been Planning Commission - l0 - October 22, 1986 opened on Main Street as soon as people started talking about the ordinance. Such a coincidence gets people angry and really undermines City Hall. He noted that City Hall tries to do a good job. The Committee tried too and still got an ordinance that everyone cannot agree with. Alberta Harton, representing South Bay Family YMCA, indicated that for months there has been a building next door to the YMCA partially demolished and dangerous to children. The YMCA has called several times during the past week because of children starting fires. She said that these are the things that should be taken care of plus the enforcement of the existing ordinances. She criticized the Planning Commission for allowing construction of small lots with no place to park in the £astLake area. Commissioner Green pointed out that EastLake has its own rules which they enforce themselves and the City ordinances do not apply. Mrs. Hartson then accused the Planning Commission of taking away recreational privileges from the citizens. Ed Kasler, 263 "L" St., commented that parking on the sideyard must be next to the driveway otherwise permission must be gotten from the Zoning Administrator and that such a procedure makes him nervous. He asked why it is more beneficial to park a motorhome on one side of the house than the other. Director of Planning Krempl stated that parking in the sideyard is permitted unless the exterior sideyard (on a corner lot only) faces the street and that parking in the sideyard is permissible without consultation with the Zoning Administrator. Howard McCauly, 950 Melrose, commented that from a safety standpoint and for a temporary period, parking of a motorhome with its wheels up on the parkway would clear the road in narrow streets. He expressed concern about a rule that prohibits such parking regardless of the circumstances. He announced that he feels the campers are being discriminated against because they are not allotted to park longer than 72 hours. Commissioner Cannon explained that the ?2-hour limitation was State law and not under control of the City. Alan Stevenson, 375 E. Naples, said the revised ordinance was a great improvement; expressed concern that the Zoning Administrator is not given any guidelines and felt that more than one person should be involved in review and decision and that a free or minimal-cost appeal process through the Planning Commission should be inaugurated. Director Krempl said the staff had no objection to some sort of appeal process to the decision of the Zoning Administrator without fee involved. Bill Rambur requested variances be made permanent so it would not be necessary to secure another variance when a change of administration occurred. Commissioner Green replied that the Commission did not have the power to bind a future City Council for something that might be desirable 50 years from now. Director Krempl then pointed out that the variance would run with the land no matter who owned the property. Planning Commission - ll October 22, 1986 Richard Longbottom asked if a variance were required when the parking was on the opposite of the house. Principal Planner Lee explained that as long as the parking occurred behind the front yard setback, then it would be in an allowed area and the ~ Administrator would not be involved; however, if the parking occurred within the front yard setback, then that would be reviewed through a site plan with the Zoning Administrator. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Chaiman Pro Tempore Green congratulated staff, particularly Ken Lee and George Krempl as having the done the Community of Chula Vista a great service. He also congratulated the members of the Community Appearance Program Committee. MSUC (Cannon/Tugenberg) 4-0 to find that the project will have no significant impact and adopt the negative declaration issued on IS-86-29. MS (Cannon/Tugenberg) to recommend that the City Council enact an ordinance amending Title l0 and Title 19 of the Municipal Code as shown in Exhibit A attached hereto with the following modifications: 1. To Section 10.52.090, add subsection "c" to allow a tractor owner to park on private property within the allowable area set forth in Section 10.84.020. 2. To Section 10.84.020, subsection 4, to add the following words to the end, "to broaden the Zoning Administrator's power to allow him to give his approval on any site that cannot fit within subsection 1 and 3 above and cannot comply with placing the vehicle on the opposite side of the property, to allow the Zoning Administrator to select an appropriate site and further, if the property owner desires to appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator, that an appeal may proceed to a public hearing before the Planning Commission without a fee." Assistant City Attorney Gill asked if: l) in Section 10.52.090, subsection 3, a limit was being placed on the number of tractors? Commissioner Cannon replied no, 2) in Section 10.84.020, subsection 4, is the Administrator required to choose a site? Commissioner Cannon again answered no, that it is at the discretion of the Zoning Administrator to choose a site and it was also within his discretion to not allow motorhomes on the opposite side of the property if he disapproved. The Commissioner continued that he also allowed the appeal process to the Planning Commission. Principal Planner Lee inquired if the appeal would involve a public hearing before the Commission with "noticing" given to the adjacent residents? The reply was yes. Commissioners Tugenberg and Green requested that the modification specify that the commercial vehicle mentioned in Section 10.52.090, subsection c, be parked behind a fence. Commissioner Cannon said he would agree to the amendment and Commissioner Tugenberg he would also. Planning Commission - 12 - October 22, 1986 Amended Motion To Section 10.52.090, add subsection "c" to allow a tractor owner to park on private property behind a fence within the allowable area set forth in Section 10.84.020. The motion passed unanimously (4-0). A five minute break from 9:10 to 9:15 was declared by the Chairman. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-87-A-M; Consideration to adjust zone boundary at the southwest corner of Third Avenue and Orange Avenue between C-3-6 (General Commercial) and RU-29 (Residential) Bob Spriggs Automatic continuance to the meeting of November 5, 1986, based on lack of a quorum due to a potential conflict of interest. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-87-B; Reconsideration to rezone approximately 0.19 acres located at 618 Fourth Avenue, Educare Children Center MSUC (Cannon/Carson) (4-0) to file. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-12; Request permission to establish a recreational vehicle storage yard at the northerly terminus of Trenton Avenue between Industrial Boulevard and Walnut Avenue; John Gardner and Bill Gretler Automatic continuation to the meeting of November 5, 1986, due to lack of quorum caused by conflict of interest. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-86-7M; Consideration of a tentative subdivision map for Weisser Subdivision, Chula Vista Tract 86-7M, located south of Naples Street between Fourth and Fifth Avenues - Victor Weisser Principal Planner Lee stated that this item is a request to subdivide 3.8 acres of land located south of Naples Street between Fourth Avenue and Fifth Avenue into 18 single-family lots. All of the lots will conform to the 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size required by the underlying R-S-? zone and will accommodate 3 and 4 bedroom 2-story dwellings with 2-car garages. The site drops approximately 20 feet in elevation from east to west. The street is designed to be single loaded on its east-west access. Landscaping will be maintained in the fronti,K,,Mr. Lee noted that there has been a similar situation at Fourth and where the subdivision backed up to the street. Lots would face a 4-foot retaining wall which is topped with a minimum high capped fence and the landscaping would be maintained by the homeowners association. Staff recommends approval of the project subject to the 21 Planning Commission - 13 - October 22, 1986 conditions. In condition "r" which requires access rights to lot A (ll feet wide 200 feet in length), it is recommended that access rights be relinquished. This is opposed by the applicant who is trying to work an agreement with property owners to the south to acquire that site. Staff has no objection to modifying the condition to indicate access rights would be relinquished when Lot A becomes part of either lot to the south or the north. Mr. Lee noted that the City's concern is having access that is not on Fourth Avenue. A petition has been received that the applicant should be required to construct a concrete wall along the south and west property lines. Staff has no objection; however, such an arrangement is not considered a logical requirement to the subdivision. A discussion ensued about the disposition of Lot A; who takes ownership; can it be considered an easement granted the City which would require City approved access; if the property is owned by the developer or the homeowners' association; how can they be forbidden to cross their own property; Engineering's concern that it may be used for vehicular access despite its ll foot width. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Susan Graceffa, 420 Emerson Street and Jean Morton, 1117 Fifth Avenue, requested construction of a concrete wall separating their properties from the proposed subdivision to prevent children entering their yards and/or into Ms. Morton's jacuzzi. They also expressed concern regarding traffic congestion and noise. They were informed that one of the conditions of approval required a 6-foot fence to the rear of the property. Larry Cole, 9630 Ramsey Way, Santee, the project engineer, discussed the situation involved with Lot A, indicating it is Mr. Weisser's intent to sell the land to one of the neighboring property owners; that he is currently the optionee on the property until the map is recorded; the strip is not a '''n separate lot at this time but a portion of the entire subdlvlslo . It was suggested by Commissioner Cannon and approved by Assistant City Attorney Gill that vehicular traffic could be limited, and the property title restricted until the ownership of Lot A transfers to the property owner on either the north or south side with the language of condition "r" subject to the satisfaction of the Attorney's office. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Tugenberg/Carson) to find the project will have no significant environmental impact and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-86-55M. MSUC (Tugenberg/Carson) that based on the findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report, to recommend that City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Weisser Subdivision, Chula Vista Tract 86-?, subject to conditions "a" through "u", with a modification to condition "r" to read "Vehicular access rights of Lot A shall be relinquished on the Final Map to the satisfaction of the City Attorney". Planning Commission - 14 - October 22, 1986 6. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-87-7 REQUEST TO CONVERT AN EXISTING GARAGE TO A PHYSICAL THERAPY ROOM WITHOUT CONSTRUCTION OF A REPLACEMENT GARAGE, 692 SECOND AVENUE, WITHIN AN R-2 RESIDENTIAL ZONE - WALTER AND MARILYN WILLIAMS The Commission was reminded that it would take a unanimous vote to act favorably on this item; with a lesser vote, the applicant has the option of returning to the Commission for a rehearing before a complete Commission. Principal Planner Lee commented that the applicants are requesting a variance to convert an existing one-car garage located at the rear of their property to a physical therapy and hydro-bath room for their 30-year-old, brain-injured son. The Zoning Ordinance requires that a garage conversion be replaced with a two-car garage. Staff explained that the hardship encountered by the applicant was personal and financial and could not be considered grounds for the granting of a variance and, for that reason, denial is recommended. The following was discussed by staff and the Commission: A variance requires a hardship connected with the property and does not involve the problems of the individual living on the property; would the law be served if the garage could still be used for car storage if and when the therapy equipment and hydro-bath were moved out; if the garage were not converted, the applicant could expand the house to build a therapy room; it is the Commission s understanding that garage conversion includes removal of the door and making the area inaccessible to vehicles; the construction of walls, a bathtub or shower installation precludes placing a vehicle in the garage; there is no legislation about what can be done inside a garage so long as it is temporary and a car could be placed inside. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Walter Williams, 692 Second Ave., the applicant, said their son has been in Western Neurocare Heal th Center in Tustin for 2 years; however he has to leave immediately because of financial reasons. No nursing home in San Diego County will accept him for less than $12,000/month. The family has accepted a small settlement of $1400/month (against a Court decision tentatively scheduled for next June) to care for him. During the 3 years the parents cared for him at home, it was necessary to move all the living room furniture daily to administer therapy. The son has a small bedroom in the house but it is not large enough for therapy and this is why they wished to convert the garage since it is not utilized for parking a car. Construction of a detached garage in the front portion of the lot would eliminate the present three parking spaces plus access to land behind the garage. Also, it is economically infeasible because of the costs associated with the long-term care of the son. Alternative ways of handling this situation were discussed among the Commission members, staff and the applicant. Assistant City Attorney cautioned the applicant that Council because of several recent actions, is concerned about attached living quarters. Some of solutions discussed included: a large room was needed; no separate partitioned walls were Planning Commission - 15 - October 22, 1986 necessary; the hydro-bath would be portable; wall board could be used, in the garage; since the son would sleep in the house and the garage would be used only for therapy, this would not be considered living quarters; there is no actual requirement that a car must be placed in a garage, only the option that it may be placed therein; adding water facilities would not constitute living quarters; and a sliding glass door could be installed in the rear so the son could be taken outdoors. MSUC (Cannon/Tugenberg) (4-0) to table this item. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Director of Planning Krempl expressed regret that Assistant City Attorney Gill was leaving the City employ, thanked him for his help in the past, and wished him qood fortune in his new assignment. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Chairman Shipe, in the name of the Commission, also expressed regret that Mr. Gill would no longer be working with them, and wished extended best wishes. Mr. Gill thanked both the Director and the Commission and promised to return - even if on the other side of the table. ADJOURNMENT at lO:lO p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of November 5, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Ruth M. Smith, Secretary Planning Commission WPC 3336P