HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1986/02/26 Tape #270-Side 1 0-1831
Tape #271-Side 1 0-279
MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
Wednesday, February 26, 1986 Public Services Building
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Cannon, Commissioners Carson, Grasser,
Green, Shipe and Tugenberg
CO~qISSIONERS ABSENT: With notification: Shipe
STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner
Lee, Assistant City Attorney Gill, Senior Civil
Engineer Daoust, Deputy City Attorney Moore,
Principal Management Assistant Byers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Cannon and was
followed by a moment of silent prayer.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Chairman Cannon reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its
responsibilities and the format of the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Guiles/Carson) to approve the minutes of the meetings of January 8 and
January 22 as mailed.
ORAL CO~qUNICATIONS
None
1. PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued) PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CERTIFIED LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM IN THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN
Due to proposed changes in the amendments to the Local Coastal Program in the
Mid-Bayfront Subarea, it was requested that the hearing on this item be
continued to May 28, 1986.
MSUC {Green/Carson) (6-0) to continue the item to the meeting of May 28, 1986.
Planning Commission -2- February 26, 1986
2. PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued) MINOR USE PERMIT PCC-86-20M:
REQUEST TO APPEAL DENIAL BY THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR FOR A CONVENIENCE CENTER AT
3023 MAIN STREET (MONTGOMERY) PHILLIPS
REYNOLDS ENGINEERING
Chairman Cannon stated he had a potential conflict of interest, turned the
Chairmanship over to Commissioner Green in the absence of Vice Chairman Shipe,
and left the dais and Chambers at 7:09.
Principal Planner Lee noted that the applicant is appealing a decision made by
the San Diego County Zoning Administrator denying the application for a
convenience market, gasoline sales area and satellite retail stores on
property zoned M-52, which permits limited impact industrial uses. As this
project is located in the recently annexed Montgomery Area, staff project
analysis was based upon the County Zoning Ordinance; the decision of the
Planning Commission is final and the appeal may not be brought before the City
Council. County Zoning M-52 is intended to create and preserve areas where
manufacturing and industrial uses with low nuisance characteristics may
locate. The County Zoning Administrator denied the application on the basis
that the site could not be considered convenient to any applicable
concentration of residential uses that demanded additional commercial services
within walking distance. The Administrator's report went on to note that
there were two existing commercial locations, approximately 1/4 to 1/2 mile
from the proposed site, and the only residential area is on the north side
just opposite the proposed facility. The Zoning Administrator further
commented that rezoning of the area to Commercial would be a better solution.
The Montgomery Planning Committee approved the project by a 5-2 vote with
certain conditions. They based their approval on the testimony given by
neighbors that commercial activities were needed in the area and were
preferable to more storage facilities.
Mr. Lee noted that it would take at 5/7 vote to override the recommendation of
the Montgomery Planning Committee.
Assistant City Attorney Gill informed the Commission that, according to the
County Zoning Ordinance, findings are needed for either approval or denial of
the project and that the Director of Planning had prepared such findings.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Dick Reynolds, Phillips-Reynolds Engr., Inc., ?l North Fourth Ave., C.V.
92010, representing the applicant, displayed a rendering of the proposed site
which would consist of a main anchor tenant, 7-11, and a sub-anchor tenant,
Jiffy Lube, plus four satellite stores including a laundromat, video store and
restaurant. He pointed out that studies conducted by 7-11 indicated that
walk-in traffic will travel 1/2 to a mile to patronize a 7-11; that a
residential area of approximately 500 dwelling units was located about 1/2
mile away plus over 600 mobile homes were located nearby. This would
represent 1,100 family units or a population of 4,000.
Planning Commission -3- February 26, 1986
Mr. Reynolds said it was their opinion that the findings would be easy to
make; the developers of the property have installed over 1,500 square feet of
street improvements, $25,000 for traffic improvements at Main and Hermosa, and
have bonded $60,000 for improvements of the drainage channel south of Main
Street; and that this strip commercial was the best and highest use of the
property. He mentioned that it was obvious in the Montgomery Planning
Committee hearing that the people want a commercial rather than a
limited-industrial facility. He presented Mr. Jeff Bequeath, District Manager
of ?-ll; Dan VanAntwerp, Security Supervisor for ?-ll, as available to answer
any questions regarding how crime is actually reduced by the proximity of a
?-ll; also Mr. Lamkin, representing Jiffy Lube was available for questioning.
Commissioner Tugenberg inquired if any consideration had been given to
developing Parcel 3 with this site as a larger commercial development. The
reply was negative and that Parcel 3 would be Industrial in compliance with
the zoning.
Lynn Pankhurst, 171 Palomar, #106, Chula Vista, 92012, expressed the opinion
that the County Zoning Administrator had denied the request because of the
possibility of Montgomery annexing to Chula Vista within 6 weeks of the
hearing date; that commercial zoning would upgrade and add considerably to the
appearance of Main Street; more mini-storage sheds were not needed
particularly in light of the recent discovery of such sheds being used as a
location for the manufacture of PCP and other drugs.
Jeff Bequeath, 15154 Amalia, San Diego, 92129, representing Southland
Corporation, noted that: (1) 7-11 is a responsible corporate citizen involved
in many projects beneficial to the Community; (2) this is an opportunity for
Southland to grow; (3) Southland is a long-term commitment with the intention
of remaining in the vicinity at least 20 years providing an anchor of
stability in the area; (4) franchise operators and employees often live within
proximity of the stores; (5) the gasoline is sold on a competitive basis and
provides a savings to residents. In response to Commissioner Carson's
question regarding the proximity of ?-lls to each other, he replied that the
growth capacity is the determining factor.
Luis Cacho, 1525 Albany Avenue, Chula Vista, 92011, commented he was a
life-long resident and had been involved in the first Planning Committee for
the area; that Main Street from Albany to Broadway had originally been
recommended as Commercial with a back-up of Industrial as the best use of the
area; however, the County zoned it Industrial; that there were sufficient
mini-storage facilities in the area; and the ?-ll would encourage a better
type of construction, create jobs and beautify the Community.
Nancy Oliver, 3315 Alvoca Street, Chula Vista, 92011, said she lived within
two blocks of the proposed site and requested the Commission support the
project.
Dan A. Van Antwerp, 8893 La Mesa Blvd, Ste F, La Mesa, 92041, representing
Southland Corporation, noted his availability to answer any questions
concerning security.
Planning Commission -4- February 26, 1986
Bob Fox, 44-4 Orange Avenue, CV 92012, a member of the Montgomery Planning
Committee but representing himself, said that Main Street is one of the major
reasons for the annexation as it is a focal point that needs cleaning out.
After listening to the citizens of the area saying they want something better
than storage areas and that the corner is an eyesore at present, the Committee
had been of the opinion that the proposed facility represented the best and
highest use of the property, and, in his personal opinion, the Committee
needed the support of the Planning Commission.
Chairman pro Tem Green thanked Mr. Fox for his contribution and expressed the
pleasure of the Commission that members of the Montgomery Planning Committee
had attended the meeting.
Commissioner Tugenberg asked if the entire corner, including Parcel 3, were to
be zoned Commercial, what would be the reaction of the Montgomery Planning
Committee. Mr. Fox replied that personally he considered that another good
use.
Director of Planning Krempl stressed the fact that Mr. Fox was speaking on his
own behalf and not that of the Montgomery Planning Committee as the question
had been worded and that one of the conditions for approval of the Montgomery
Planning Committee had been that Parcel 3 be developed commercially.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
In response to Commissioner Guiles' question if the recommendation of the
Montgomery Planning Committee with reference to Parcel 3 limited further
development to commercial only, Director Krempl said the recommendation had
been about property not under consideration at the hearing and, therefore
would not be enforceable.
Commissioner Green expressed support of the decision of the Montgomery
Planning Committee as the proposed application was preferable to more storage
sheds and another gas station in the area was worthwhile.
Commissioner Tugenberg concurred saying it is a neighborhood improvement and
he hoped the owners would develop Parcel 3 simultaneously.
MSC(Guiles/Grasser) Cannon abstaining (5-0) to find that this project will
have no significant environmental impacts and adopt Negative declaration
issued on Log #85-18-17.
MSC(Carson/Grasser) Cannon abstaining (5-0) that based on findings read into
the record by Principal Planner Lee to approve the applicant's request and
support the decision of the Montgomery Planning Committee. The findings for
approval of the variance were as follows:
Minor Use Permit PCC-86-20M: Findings for Approval of Variance
1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act
of the owner exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in
developing the property for the needs of the owner consistent with the
Planning Commission -5- February 26, 1986
regulations of the zone; but in this context, personal, family or financial
difficulties, loss of prospective profits, and neighboring violations are not
hardships justifying a variance. Further, a previous variance can never have
set a precedent, for each case must be considered only on its individual
merits.
Because of the configuration of the overall property and its odd shape, no
purpose would be served by introducing an internal setback between an
industrial building on the property line and the proposed retail use.
2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning
district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not
constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors.
The configuration of the majority of properties within the same zone and
vicinity would allow for logical site development while at the same time
maintaining the required rear yard setback.
3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial
detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the purposes of
this chapter or the public interest.
The parcel to the south enjoys a zero setback on the common property line
shared with the subject parcel. Thus, no detriment would result from the
granting of this variance.
4. That the authorizing of such variance will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
The General Plan encourages the efficient and logical development of
industrial property and these objectives are facilitated by this
variance.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-8-67 - CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 10 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
Director of Planning Krempl explained the proposed changes to the Municipal
Code under Title l0 - Vehicles and Parking - involved subsections regulating
{1) stopping and standing within or on a parkway; (2) parking of commercial
vehicles in a residential district; (3) parking restrictions applying to
private property; and (4) enforcement of those provisions. Under Title 19 -
Zoning - the subsections concern (1) repair of vehicles; (2) front yard
setback restrictions; and {3) some overlap of language dealing with
enforcement of those conditions.
Planning Commission -6- February 26, 1986
He emphasized that the proposed amendment changes were not related to the
annexation of ~ontgomery but had been set in action over 2 years ago (1983) by
the City Council's General Appearance Program and Policy, and by Council's
inquiry (in the summer of 1985) as to why the policy had not been effected.
Staff's reply referenced the lack of enforcement authority for zoning
personnel, vague language and a lack of clear definition of a bona fide
violation of the regulations. The ordinance should be enforced in an
equitable fashion throughout the City, or, if the current language of the
regulations posed difficulties, amendments should be made. The resultant
draft being considered this evening proposes to clarify and strengthen the
language rather than introduce new provisions into the existing ordinance. As
an example, the definition of "vehicle" is proposed to be expanded to include
boats, trailers, campers and items of a similar nature.
Director Krempl referred to the confusion compounded by newspaper articles and
letters published in response. He declared the proposed amendments do not
prevent people parking RVs in the public street in front of their homes or in
the public right-of-way. RVs can still be parked in the front yard; however,
if placed in an exterior side yard, a 6-foot fence is mandatory for screening
purposes. He pointed out that fences are placed between interior side yards
in residential areas as a matter of course so no unusual hardship was
involved. General storage of inoperative vehicles, camper shells, and
unlicensed vehicles will not be allowed in the front yard but can be located
in the rear or side yard if screened from view.
Director Krempl noted that the most concern has been expressed regarding
Sections 10.84.020 (Vehicles and Parking) and Section 18.62.150 (Zoning) which
stipulate that parking in the front yard of a residence must be in a garage,
on a paved driveway or an alternate approved paved surface. He emphasized to
the Commission that particular attention should be paid to the section of the
ordinance being discussed in tonight's testimony, inasmuch as if most of the
testimony relates to front yard parking and the Commission decides to alter,
delete or modify the section pertaining to that parking, the other six
sections covered by the proposed amendments should still be considered.
Some of those other provisions in the proposed amendments include (1) a
stipulation that a vehicle parked in a driveway may not project over the
sidewalk thus interfering with pedestrian traffic; (2) the parking of
commercial vehicles over 10,000 pounds in residential areas is limited to 5
hours unless for specific reasons; i.e., householders moving furniture in or
out of a home, vehicles being in the neighborhood to perform a service such as
repairs to plumbing, roofing or the like; (3) the present stipulation
prohibiting a semi-tractor trailer rig parking on a public street for an
extended period of time is expanded to include the prohibition of parking of
such a vehicle on private property on a long-term basis; (4) no repair
business is permitted within a residential area; (5) the repair of vehicles
(including campers, boats, and trailers) is limited to within a garage or
other enclosed area with no more than one inoperable vehicle being worked on
at any one time and no repairs permitted during night time hours. The intent
being to prevent owners of multiple vehicles from performing major engine and
Planning Commission -7- February 26, 1986
transmission work over an extended period of time. Minor repairs such as lube
jobs, spark plug changes, or minor engine adjustments are not affected by the
ordinance. (6) No inoperable vehicles {unless screened) shall remain in the
front yard area for repair for more than 48 hours.
Director Krempl explained that violations are currently brought to the
attention of staff by complaints from neighbors; the Inspector resolves the
problem verbally if possible, or by giving a series of notices covering
specific periods of time. This means the violation could remain uncorrected
for a considerable period. The intent of the amendment would be to give the
Zoning Enforcement Officers citation powers which would be used after due
warning had been issued. This has been done with success by many neighboring
communities.
The Director concluded by citing the recommendation of the Montgomery Planning
Committee that the proposed amendments on Title l0 be continued until after
the Committee has been able to convene a workshop and discuss the effect of
the amendments on the Montgomery Community. The Committee al so requested that
although the Title 19 amendments do not affect the Montgomery Area (as they
refer to the Chula Vista Municipal Code and not the County Zoning Ordinance),
the opportunity of completing the Specific Plan should be achieved for
Montgomery prior to the passage of any Zoning Ordinance amendment for
Montgomery.
Director Krempl said this item will automatically continue to Council,
probably the end of March or early April, and that all persons giving
testimony or phoning a request would be so notified at the time of the public
hearing.
Replies to questions asked by the Commission included:
(1) RVs regardless of weight are not considered commercial vehicles;
(2) The Zoning Enforcement Officer will be able to determine the appropriate
location for the paved area in the front yard because clear policy
statements defining permissible and non-permissible locations will be
issued under the direction of the Director of Planning.
Commissioner Green expressed concern that such standards are not expressed
within the ordinance itself. Director Krempl replied that if the
Commission so desired it could dictate that the standards be included in
the ordinance; however, it was the intent to have them as a matter of
policy. Assistant City Attorney Gill remarked that the policy could be
established by direction of Council either through the ordinance, by the
Director of Planning, the City Manager or the Council itself and that
legally there is no concern over which method is used;
(3) Most communities have an ordinance regulating parking, its location, and
the presence of commercial vehicles in residential areas, which varies
from community to community in strictness;
Planning Commission -8- February 26, 1986
(4) The enforcement of this ordinance would be made by the existing three
Zoning Enforcement Officers.
Commissioner Green remarked that in connection with his private practice he
had occasion to review the County ordinances re zoning recently and found them
so vague as to be unenforceable.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
The following people spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment:
(1) Howard M. Fousie, 202 East "J" St., CV 92010 - representing 22 people in
the Chambers
(2) A1 Pressutti, 917 Nolan Way, CV 92011
(3) Helen Pressutti, 917 Nolan Way, CV 92011
(4) Wiley Humphrey, 663 Fig Avenue, CV 92010
(5) G. Loffreno, 627 Ash, CV 92010
(6) Bernadette Wood, 943 Myra Ave., CV 92011
(7) Henry M. Glunz, 555 Naples St #805, CV 92011, member "Good Sam" Club
(8) Janet Ardagna, 1120 Second Ave., CV 92011
(9) E.L. Bernier, lll2 Del Mar, CV 92010
(10) Ed Snyder, 376 Naples, CV 92011
(ll) Richard A. Haenel, 736 Nacion Ave., CV 92010, read letter into record
(12) Robert Hill, 661 Hilltop Dr., CV 92010
(13) Jim March, 644 Floyd Ave., CV 92010, representing Vagabonds, Elks 2011
(14) Bill Applewhite, 221 East Palomar St., CV 92011
(15) Melvin Cowherd, 394 Corte Maria, CV 92010
(16) Douglas R. Welch, 243 A Rancho Drive, CV 92011
(1) Mr. Fousie, spokesman for 22 individuals present in the Chambers,
referred to the impossibility of getting equipment into the back yard
because of the small separation between homes; noted that if he sold his
boat after investing in a cement pad, he would be left with all that
concrete; as he owns a jeep, two cars, a camper and a boat, he has no
place to park except in the front yard or on "J" Street; that as he
doesn't understand the phrase "approved parking area" he has no way of
knowing where he may park; and if he were denied a variance and appealed
to Council the total cost would be $625. Mr. Fousie challenged the
impartiality of the Commission because only one member indicated owning
a boat, RV or camper; stated he could not afford to park his camper or
boat elsewhere; and cited the Ohio Euclid vs Fitzthum case wherein
similar regulations were proven illegal. He expressed the opinion that
it would be better to study the lighting on "J" Street where there have
been many accidents than endeavor to enact this ordinance.
Upon completion of Mr. Fousie's testimony, Commissioner Green declared
that the Commission is appointed by Council to consider matters such as
this issue; is not responsibile for the drafting of the ordinance; he
Planning Commission -9- February 26, 1986
considered it unfair of Mr. Fousie whom he did not know to intimate he,
as a member of the Commission, might be prejudiced because he did not
own a recreation vehicle; that if a fair and impartial response was
expected from the Commission, it must be treated with fairness.
Chairman Cannon added that tonight is the Commission's first
consideration of the ordinance also and they were neither for nor
against it. He did not own a commercial building but the Commission
ruled on them, and therefore he felt competent to act on this issue even
if he did not own a boat or camper himself. He requested that the
speakers make their points and the Commission would make its decision
which is all that can be asked of the Commission.
(2) Mr. Pressutti noted that the way the houses are developed in some areas
it is dangerous to park on the streets; the cement pad he had built now
conflicts with the specifications outlined in the proposed amendment;
based on his l0 years as a Commissioner, he can not see how any
ordinance that impacts on aesthetics or safety can stand the light of
scrutiny as it must refer to safety or to the welfare of the people and
his RV does not impinge on those factors; there has never been a study
to indicate that an R¥ parked in a yard is a detraction to the ambience
of the City; and the ordinance is totally out of place.
The Chairman asked for a show of hands of those in agreement with
Mr. Pressutti's statement; almost all hands were raised.
(3) We have worked hard to have a ~V and to enjoy it and I will march all
the way to Sacramento gathering signatures to protect this - our
enjoyment in life which doesn't obstruct anyone's view but ours.
(4) If I had to build a fence in my side yard, I would not be able to get
into my garage which is located on the rear of the property; the
cleaning-up should be of junk piles, not ~Vs, boats and trailer homes.
{6) My mobile home has been on the driveway since 1973; can't afford to
store it; this ordinance is very unfair to citizens and it is wrong to
suggest it.
{7) The way the Code is set up is very vague; there are no terms regarding
the size of vehicles; aesthetics is a matter of taste and depends on the
individual; should be able to make repairs on own property as long as no
mess or noise is made; the recreation vehicle clubs, like "Good Sam"
which is nationwide, should be contacted to get their guidelines.
{8) Our house is 50 years old and the boat is parked on the grass; if we
have to sell the boat, our children will be deprived of one of the
advantages we want to give them; the ordinance is wrong and will open a
Pandora's box forcing people to become criminals.
Planning Commission -10- February 26, 1986
{At this point, another show of hands signifying agreement was requested and
almost all hands were raised.)
(9) When I received a ticket in 1961 from Imperial Beach for having three
cars in my back yard, the judge said the ticket was unconstitutional.
(lO) My recommendation is to cancel the proposed amendment.
(ll) Mr. Haenel read a letter into the record claiming apparent
discrimination as the proposed ordinance singles out one type of vehicle
for regulation; the additional expense of storage might be inaffordable
to families; the construction of subdivisions with no alleys and small
sideyards leaves the RV owner with no place but the driveway to park.
Would the proposed ordinance be inverse condemnation by preventing the
home owner from the use of the driveway for RV parking purposes? In
response to Commissioner Tugenberg.'s request for suggestions on handling
problems like camper shells, engine hoists or vehicles without front
axles remaining in the front yard area for long periods of time, Mr.
Haenel replied that the existing laws on the books need to be enforced
or that particular problem addressed by a specific amendment.
(12) I was told I could park my 5-wheel trailer on the side of my house if I
put down a cement pad; now I find I cannot park there unless I have a
6-foot high fence also; however, as my garage and my trailer sit 24 feet
from the sidewalk, a 6-foot high fence would look like a shipping crate
- the trailer looks better.
(13) Mr. Marsh, representing some 75 members of the recreational group
Vagabonds, stated his group was concerned about the wording in the
proposed ordinance amendment and cited the following sections:
10.84.020 - In the second and seventh lines, the words "aesthetic
~-~hould be replaced with clearer wording conveying the intent of
the section. The reference to the "solid fence and gate" does not
indicate whether the gate must be solid or can be chain-link; no maximum
fence height for the screening is indicated; yet, if his 10'6" motor
home were screened completely, the fence would be higher than the eves
of his home.
The last three lines of the section stipulate that, "Items
that are not self-propelled vehicles, licensed trailers, or on licensed
trailers may not be placed in the front or exterior yard setback area or
drivewa~v whether paved or not." If the "not" which preceded the phrase
"self-propelled vehicle" applies to licensed trailers, the word should
be inserted since its present reading could be misconstrued to mean
licensed trailers may not be parked in the driveway whether paved or not.
10.84.030 - The group has no issue with this section although Mr. Marsh
said he personally questioned the wisdom of a citation just 24 hours
after issuance of a warning and that 72 hours might be more realistic.
Planning Commission -ll- February 26, 1986
19.58.260 - The wording in sub-paragraph A, "All repair of vehicles,...,
shall be conducted within a totally enclosed garage or behind a solid
fence or wall not less than six feet in height;" is contradictory to
sub-paragraph G which states, "Nothing in this section is intended to
prohibit the making of minor repairs,...by an owner on his vehicle..."
The word "all" in A is in direct conflict with G.
Mr. Marsh noted that the Ohio Court of Appeals held a
statute may be held unconstitutional on the grounds of vagueness {such
as is evidenced in the previous section) if persons of average
intelligence must guess at its meaning and differ in their
interpretations. Also, the ruling of an Appellant Court considering
the enforcen~nt of an ordinance similar to the one proposed said that
repair of vehicles in an enclosed structure was not supportive of public
health/safety since a possibility of trapping sewage from the sanitary
holding tanks or for leakage of highly-flammable propane gas from the
stove or furnace exists. Outdoors, these gas fumes would escape into
the air.
19.62.110 and 19.62.150 require clarification and are unfair inasmuch as
RVs and the like were purchased on the premise that they could be kept
on private property without expensive fences; alteration of the homes to
comply with the ordinance is impossible; and with the enactment or
approval of the wording, thousands of Chula Vista residents would be
forced to seek expensive and inconvenient storage areas. Mr. Marsh
urged that the proposed amendments should be made effective in newer
areas by a grandfather clause and thus create the option for people of
purchasing property with a restricted use or of older property without
the restriction. Locations and names of RV owners could be computerized
and kept up to date easily. He concluded by saying it was the
recommendation of the Vagabonds that all sections cited be returned to
the committee for rewording and clarification of intent.
(14) Does the "no vehicles" referred to in 10.84.020 refer to a car?
Director Krempl replied that it is permissible to park any vehicle in
the side yard; however, the screening is in reference to an exterior
side yard of a corner lot {which affects the setback as no parking is
permitted for the first l0 feet). The balance of the side yard,
however, is available for parking.
(15) The number of registered motorhomes in the U.S. will soon reach 8
million which equates to an RV for 8.3 percent of the entire country and
higher in California; Exhibit A vests a great deal of authority in the
Zoning Administrator without any definition of his total authority;
after reviewing pictures of his motor home with and without a portable
fence, he considered the appearance without the fence was more
attractive. Mr. Cowherd expressed concern over the 24-hour period
intervening between warning and citation saying 30 days would be more
practical as it would be impossible to locate enough storage spaces to
accommodate the RVs presently in violation; the citation should be
Planning Commission -12- February 26, 1986
waived if permits are obtained to bring the property into conformance;
in the event of a collision loss, no insurance company would take care
of the damages within 48 hours; that few landlords would be willing to
make alterations necessary to bring rental property into confo~nance
with the proposed ordinance and asked if that aspect had been considered.
(16) The Commission should realize that a cross-section of the Community is
present tonight, a working-class community that enjoys playing with its
RVs, motorhomes and boats. When he brings his 22 foot sailboat from the
storage yard to prepare it for a trip. it takes approximately 3 days and
his neighbors do not object; the Commission should continue to listen to
the Community, and if an ordinance to clean up junky yards in front of
people's houses is needed, such an ordinance should be passed - not one
on recreational vehicles.
A recess was called by the Chairman at 9:00 and the Commission reconvened at
9:ll.
Testimony in opposition to the proposed ordinance changes was continued by the
following:
(l?) Roy G. Cahalan, ll09 Del Mar Ave., CV 92011
(18) Fred Creveling, 555 Oxford St., CV 92011, member of MPC but repr self
(19) Elsie L. Guthrie, 977 Myra Ave., CV 92011
20) Luther D. Scarborough, 118 Jefferson Ave., CV 92010
21) Hale E. Newcomb, 515 Elm Ave., CV 92010
22) Tom DuBose, 212 Chula Vista St., CV 92010 - 80th Assembly Candidate
23) Wendell Wilson, 1192 Oxford Ct., CV 92011
24) Mary Helvie, 301 Nocturne Ct., CV 92011
25) Pat Barajas, 375 "J" Street, CV
26) D. Gorgol, 470 Jamul, CV 92011
27) Bill Bickel, 143 East "J" St., CV 92010
28) Pierre Lamarre, 185 "J" St., CV 92010, repr Vagabond, Elks 2011
29) Alan Stevenson, 375 E. Naples, CV 92011
30) Debbie Stevenson, 375 E. Naples, CV 92011
(31) Gilbert Gutierrez, 472 Oxford St., CV 92011
(18) Fred Creveling, a member of the Montgomery Planning Committee but
speaking only for himself, recommended the entire ordinance be rewritten
to restore property rights to Chula Vistans and to find methods to solve
the problem not fine people. He noted that things are a little
backwards when we can do things in public streets that we cannot do on
private property; and questioned incongruities in the following
sections:
10.82.020 - wording is in subjective terms and not measurable.
10.82.030 - "a salaried officer" pertains to a police position or
department head - not an hourly person.
Planning Co~ission -13- February 26, 1986
19.58.026 (F) states storage of parts where repairs prohibited is
illegal - but limited to 100 square feet.
19.62.150 - Does the word "required" which is used twice in "No required
parking spaces or required maneuvering area..." mean required by the
Zoning Administrator or the size of the fifth-wheelers?
19.62.200 24 hours to correct a violation is unreasonable and the
problem of abatement needs to be addressed. The City of Marysville
found a violation, cited it but failed to abate it. When someone was
hurt, it was ruled that there was an obligation to abate the problem
after citing it and it cost the City $2 million.
(21) When house built 32 years ago, there was no room provided for adequate
setbacks between houses. I have about 162 feet of property line length
with an easement; can it be considered as access to the backyard? I
never had a complaint whenever I parked my vehicle in the yard. Nave
about 25 tickets for parking it in the street.
(24) This is a catch-all legislation; RVs supply taxes; beauty is in the eye
of the beholder; behind my house is an unfinished building; my neighbor
is buildin9 an airplane; there are yards and houses I think are
eyesores; this would create a witch hunt; what I put on my property is
my prerogative as long as it is not dangerous; look at what is
unlicensed or up on blocks.
(25) I object to Rvs parked in front being used as a second home with an
extension cord running out to them; I moved here because Chula Vista was
beautiful now it's getting junky; cars without motors, and anything in
the front setbacks should be gotten rid of.
(26) My major concern is we are creating a potential source for vendettas in
the neighborhood; you should address the main concerns junk; one
neighbor had rotten refuse sitting by his house for a long time before
he was able to get a trash truck from the City to come out and remove
it; the kind of chan9es that are needed here cannot be addressed in the
few words that have been used.
(27) Cited problems relating to his particular property that is on a corner
lot, has a 165 ft. frontage and another 90 ft. on the side with his
trailer parked beside the garage over 40 feet from the sidewalk. He had
asked permission to build a 6 foot fence originally and the request was
denied; now he has to put in another slab and a 6 foot fence - this
gives him a lot of concrete. If this is enforced, he will put in a
legal fence but it will be ugly and the City won't like it. Something
should be done about other things that people are doing, like blocking
the sidewalk so the blind bump into cars that should not be there; or
having trailers sittin§ in the front yard in front of windows; don't
make us store the RVs away from our homes; let's clean up the junk and
not the RVs.
Planning Commission -14- February 26, 1986
(29) Impossible to park my motorhome in the driveway because of its length,
or by the garage because of the overhang; can only park in the street;
to have to get rid of the motorhome would ruin the family's whole life
style.
Note: Others listed concurred with what was said or registered their
opposition to the ordinance.
The following people spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance amendments :
(1) Donald Bidwell, 1695 Gotham, CV 92010
(2) Ruth E. Chagnon, 634 Belinda Way, CV 92010
(3) F. I. Chagnon, 634 Belinda Way, CV 92010
Il) I am in favor of the ordinance because the proliferation of RVs on my
street makes it difficult to back out safely onto the street.
(2) Showed the Commission pictures of the camper shell which had been lying
in her neighbor's front yard area obstructing their view; referred to
the numerous wheel-less and tire-less cars on the streets and in front
yard areas and asked if she would be permitted to park an airplane in
her front yard if she purchased one.
(3) Concurred with the previous statement adding he would like to see people
forced to "clean up their act" including the removal or storage behind
fences or in the back yard of campers on saw-horses (a safety hazard to
children), truck camper tops, and other junk piles.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
In reply to questions asked about 19.62.110, the Commission was informed that
driveways constituted an approved area; In 19.62.150, the word "required"
referenced the two parking spaces mandated for residential areas and covers
the contingency of a possible addition to the building; with regard to a query
if there are provisions covering a safety hazard on private property caused by
improper parking, Attorney Gill replied the City has authority to enforce
clear sight lines by enforcing height limitations on walls and hedges on
exterior corner lots and such a safety hazard would fall into that category.
Commissioner Cannon said he had an existing prejudice against inappropriate
items parked in front yard; and because of his profession, great concern over
regulating what people may or may not do on their private property; that, as
has been said, "one man's beauty is another man's eyesore" where aesthetics
are concerned; he cannot envision a Zoning Administrator going around viewing
people's aesthetic tastes and setting his own aesthetic judgment against that
of the property owners; believes there should be a regulation regarding
inoperative vehicles that aren't moved, but does not believe the ordinance as
written would be enforceable. Commissioner Cannon pointed out that in Section
10.84.020, the "item of similar nature considering size, use and aesthetic
impact" is difficult to visualize and definitely calls for a subjective
Planning Commission -15- February 26, 1986
determination or judgment on the part of the City staff member. In his
opinion, when we are discussing a potential criminal violation that might
result in a fine being levied, the ordinance must be more specific. Section
19.48.260 also needs more specificity; he would like to see an ordinance
regarding vehicular repair howeve~ even the existing ordinance is unclear and
the changes suggested neither add to nor diminish it; with the exception of
the areas dealing with private parking and commercial vehicles in residential
areas, the entire ordinance is closely tied with the problems previously
stated. For these reasons, with the current ordinance in front of him, he
cannot support the ordinance.
Commissioner Tugenberg concurred and said he also could not support the
ordinance changes; regarding the constitutionality of police powers and
safety, where the location of recreational vehicles prevented visibility of
drivers emerging from their own driveways or when huge motorhomes obstructed
the vision of stop signs at intersections, a safety hazard was created which
is within the police powers to regulate.
Commissioner Grasser concurred with the previous statements noting the
ordinance as written is ambiguous and needs more specificity; she feels for
motor home owners because when she moved from a 1-acre lot in Bonita to
nomal-sized lot in town, she was obliged to park their RV on the street for
several months until she was able to either sell or relocate it as she cared
enough for the neighborhood to not leave it there too long; as a realtor she
is aware that indiscriminate parking brings down property values. She agrees
with the City in concept but doesn't feel the changes presented tonight would
be adequate.
Commissioner Guiles said he is torn between the problem of unsightliness and
allowing people to do what they want on private property; that Sections
10.52.040 and 10.52.090 are the only sections with which he has no problems
and he cannot approve the ordinance as written.
Commissioner Green stated agreement adding he would like to see more work done
on this ordinance especially regarding vehicular repair since the ordinance as
written is confusing and vague.
Commissioner Carson said she would reject the ordinance as written; she
doesn't want to infringe on the lives of RV owners or anyone in the Community
but people who have chosen not to spend their money on RVs also have rights.
She cited the difficulty in avoiding a 3-year old who runs out from behind an
improperly parked car, or witnessing a blind person walking into a car
illegally parked across the driveway; and would like action taken on removing
the junk in Chula Vista since it affects the quality of our lives.
MSUC (Green/Tugenberg) {?-0) to find this project will have no significant
environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-86-29.
MSUC (Green/Grasser) (7-0) to recommend Council enact an ordinance accepting
the proposed wording for Sections 10.52.040 (Parkways) and 10.52.090
(Commercial Vehicles in Residential Areas) amending Title lO of the Municipal
Code; the remainder of the ordinance as proposed to be returned to staff for
rewriting.
Planning Commission -16- February 26, 1986
EXTRACT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 26, 1986
4. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT PCA-86-6 - CONSIDERATION
OF AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 19 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
TO CLARIFY AND REGULATE REMODELING OR ADDITIONS
TO EXISTING DWELLING UNITS WITHIN SINGLE FAMILY
AND DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND SIMILARLY
REGULATED AREAS
Principal Planner Lee stated that as a result of questions raised by Council
in May 1985 concerning the remodeling of a single-family residence on Country
Club Drive, staff was directed to review existing City ordinances regarding
remodeling standards and return with a report and recommendations for possible
revision to the Municipal Code. The report was approved on January 21, 1986.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed ordinance defines and will identify
the amount of remodeling which constitutes new construction and will provide a
control measure for bulk and scale of single-family or duplex dwellings within
residential areas.
Mr. Lee pointed out that the proposed amendment would require that only the
remodeled and new additions must comply with current setback standards; the
height limit for principal buildings will be reduced to 24 feet by right, with
an increase to 35 feet permitted by a conditional use permit; and that the
bulk and scale of the structure will be controlled by setting a 45% floor area
ratio (FAR) which will limit the amount of square footage to 45% of the size
of the lot. He emphasized that not until a second story is added would the
floor area ratio come into effect. Using an overhead projection, he reviewed
various situations under current and proposed ordinance sections.
Mr. Lee drew the Commission's attention to an error in the text indicating a
55 FAR was intended instead of 45% for the R-2 zones noting that the R-2 zone
has limited application in the City. In addition, a suggested change to the
wording in the last sentence of Section 19.22.170 was recommended to read,
"...subject to review of drawings by the Director of Planning for
verification."
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was
opened. With no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Green expressed concern that no provision had been made for
illegal construction or remodeling which had taken place in the past and
becomes apparent during plan check of the proposed new addition or remodeling
of the structure. Mr. Lee replied that the non-conforming section of the
ordinance could be reviewed and reported on if the Commission so desired.
MSUC (Tugenberg/Guiles, 6-0} to find the project will have no significant
environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-85-30.
MSUC (Tugenberg/Carson, 6-0) that Council enact an ordinance amending Title 19
of the Municipal Code to clarify and regulate any remodeling and new additions
to existing dwellings within single-family and duplex residential zones and
similarly regulated areas subject to the two recommended changes proposed by
Mr. Lee.
Planning Commission -l?- February 26, 1986
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
None
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Tugenberg requested the attention of the Traffic Engineer be
directed toward RVs that park too close to intersections and block stop signs.
Attorney Gill stated that the Safety Commission was forwarding such an
ordinance to Council in the very near future.
ADJOURNMENT AT lO:15 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of March 12, 1986 at
7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers
Ruth M. Smith, Recording Secretary
WPC 2600P