Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1983/05/25 Tape 234 Side l: 0-1471 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Wednesday, May 25, 1983 Council Chambers 5:00 p.m. Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Vice Chairman O'Neill, Commissioners Cannon, Green, G. Johnson, Pressutti, and Shipe COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chairman R. Johnson (with previous notification) STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Gray, Associate Planner Griffin, Associate Planner Liuag, Principal Planner Pass, Assistant City Attorney Harron, Housing Coordinator Gustafson, Secretary Ruth Smith PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, SILENT PP~qYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Vice Chairman O'Neill, acting as Chairman Pro Tem for the meeting, and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Shipe/Cannon) to approve the minutes of April 27, 1983 and April 13, 1983 as mailed. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR FORTY-ONE MADISON, CHULA VISTA TRACT 83-1 - WESLEY FRANCIS AND MARIE SACKETT Associate Planner Liuag informed the Commission that the project consists of an existing five-unit apartment complex which the applicant wishes to convert into a one-lot condominium project. The Design Review Committee approved the develop- ment in 1978 and the revised drawings adding required condominium storage in 1982. Staff is recommending approval of the project. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. J. Algert, of Algert and Hays Engineering, representing the applicant, stated that he was available for questioning by the Commission, and that he had no objections to the findings or recommendations outlined in the staff report. Planning Commission -2- MaS 25, 1985 Chairman Pro Tem O'Neill expressed concern about page 3, paragraph 4, of the staff report in view of the exacerbation of the rental housing vacancy rates by the removal of more rental units from the market. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSC (G. Johnson/Green) that based on the findings contained in Section "D" of the staff report, to recommend that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Forty-One Madison, Chula Vista Tract 83-1. Commissioner O'Neill voted "no". 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 19 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITHIN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES Planning Director Gray reviewed the provisions added to the draft ordinance since the Commission's Workshop meeting on this subject: - The accessory unit shall be limited to one bedroom. - Upon the death or the property owner or in event of foreclosure of the property, the requirement for owner occupancy of the unit shall be re-established within a one-year period. - The property owner must file an annual affidavit with the Planning Department, in addition to the initial permit application, to prove a continuing compliance with the Code's provisions. This will relieve the City of having to make periodic inspections. He also pointed out that the Commission's packet contained two versions of the draft ordinance; the one recommended by the Planning Department (Exhibit "B"), which differs from the Planning Commission's alternative definition (Exhibit "C"). Exhibit "C" reflects the Commission's wish to allow persons related to the owner by birth, marriage or adoption and who do not meet the age criteria of 60 years to live in the accessory unit. Director Gray explained that State Legislation mandated cities to (1) draft an ordinance to provide for accessory units in single-family zones, (2) make a finding that conditions exist precluding that necessity, or (3) accept the State-prescribed criteria. The Planning Department recognizes the ordinance will increase housing opportunities for elderly and handicapped persons, and has outlined stringent criteria under which these units may be permitted. The Department does not recom- mend Exhibit "C" because of the highly experimental type of program involved and the possibility of these units being occupied by younger people. Other factors presented for the Commission's information included: - A recommendation by the Commission on Aging that Council consider lowering the age criteria from 60 to 55, and give special consideration to widows and widowers under that age, or to persons experiencing extreme financial hardships. Planning Commission -3- MaS 25, 1983 - Endorsement by the Human Relations Commission of the proposed ordinance as outlined. - A letter from the Assistant City Attorney to Council outlining the legal enforce- ment of deed restrictions for accessory units. He then introduced Steve Griffin, Associate Planner, and Dave Gustafson, Housing Coordinator, as available to answer any questions the Comission might have. Assistant City Attorney Harron interposed that the proposal in Exhibit "C", to allow family members in addition to senior citizens and the handicapped, would fall under the law as expressed in the Cits of Chula Vista versus Pagard and the Cits of Santa Barbara versus Adamson and would extend to allow groups that live like family members. In reply to a question by Commissioner G. Johnson, Director Gray stated that our proposed ordinance allows an expansion of the living area of an existing single- family detached dwelling of up to 640 square feet as opposed to the 10 percent of existing floor area standard expansion contained in the State criteria. Commissioner Johnson also asked about phone inquiries received re the Planning Commission meeting being held at 5:00 p.m. instead of the customary 7:00 p.m. She was informed that no calls had been received but a Mr. Norman had raised the question at one of the Council meetings. Discussion ensued between staff and the Commission on problems and enforcement procedures planned to control the use of these units through the City's zoning ordinance and the filing of an annual affidavit by the owner. Called into question was the use of a deed restriction on the property title in the event of a foreclosure and/or death of the owner. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. The following people spoke in favor of the accessory units: 1) Marcie MacLeod, California State Director of the Elder Cottage Coalition, 751 Seventh Avenue, San Diego, 92101, a volunteer organization of individuals supporting the concept of SB 1160. As liaison between local jurisdictions, the State, seniors, community develop- ment, and authorized to speak for Senator Mello, Ms. MacLeod presented herself in the capacity of a resource person. Also, she has worked with many other jurisdictions and is able to answer questions relative to their ordinances. In reply to queries by the Commission, Ms. MacLeod stated that (a) competent authorities have said there is no legally defensible definition of "family", however, the age restriction on a "privileged activity" as opposed to a normal condition is legally defensible; (b) the local jurisdiction is permitted to either assess hook-up fees or not, but it was clearly the intention that the units be considered as accessory dwellings with the utilities to be run through the main structure and not separately metered so there was little justification for utility hook-up fees. Planning Commission -4- MaS 25, 1983 2. Dan Brennan, 171 Camino Vista Real, Chula Vista, speaking as a member of the Human Relations Commission of Chula Vista, and as Chairman of Congressman Duncan Hunter's Advisory Commission on Housing. Mr. Brennan agreed with Ms. MacLeod, but, as a member of the Human Relations Commission, is concerned with the expansion to include family, which was clearly not the intent of the bill and will provide many problems with noise, traffic, school impaction and the like. He also cited possible difficulties which could arise with the addition of a deed restriction including borrowing money for construction, resale, public hearings and neighborhood antipathy. The following persons spoke against the accessory dwelling units: 1. J.R. Norman, 908 Mission Avenue, Chula Vista 2. Bess Pocklington, 656 Glover Place, Chula Vista 3. Gretchen Burkey, Bonita, a property owner in Chula Vista 4. Irene Maxwell, 473 Berland Way, Chula Vista 5. Bob Maxwell, 473 Berland Way, Chula Vista 6. Patricia Porter, 418 "I~' Street, Chula Vista Objections included: - deterioriation of the R-1 zone - State legislation intruding in local ordinances - destruction of neighborhood concept - lack of City personnel to enforce ordinance - concern over double fees being charged for utilities - trash pick-up, SDG&E - parking problems - noise - construction of accessory unit on property line as a possibility which will infringe on privacy of neighbor - deed restrictions and problems related to them - growing movement among organizations to repeal the bill - Mr. Norman, Ms. Pocklington, Ms. Maxwell stated they had no objection to an attached accessory unit only to a detached unit. In response to several questions, Director Gray stated that the 10-foot separation requirement would prevent an accessory unit being constructed too close to an abutting residence. He also suggested that this program, being an experimental program, be reviewed in a year's time and adjustments or corrections made. The Planning Department has tried to minimize the fees involved because of fixed income restrictions on many seniors. Commissioner Cannon asked the Assistant City Attorney if deed restrictions were enforceable against a second owner who bought property possessing two kitchens, and was told that if the City was notified of the violation, the incident would be investigated and prosecuted under Chula Vista law. MSC (Cannon/G. Johnson) to continue the public hearing to the meeting of June 22, 1983 for the purpose of reviewing the matter further and requesting staff to supply the Commission with ordinances from the State, County, and other cities including Monterey. Commissioner Green voted "no". Planning Commission -5- MaS 25, 1983 A substitute motion was made by Commissioner Green to recommend that Council adopt the ordinance as shown in Exhibit "B" with the exception of the paragraph relating to deed restrictions and that Council ensure that minimal hook-up fees be imposed. The motion failed for lack of a second. DIRECTORS REPORT: - To cancel the meeting of June 8, 1983 for lack of items. Planning Commission agreed. - To have the Workshop meeting on June 15, 1983 at 4:00 p.m., in Conference Room 3, to continue the review of material unfinished at the last Workshop meeting. The Commission agreed. Commissioner Cannon will be out of town. - The Commission was reminded of the Budget Overview meeting to be held by Council on May 26, 1983, at 4:00 p.m., in the Council Conference Room. - The Planning Department budget is scheduled for Council review on Tuesday, May 31, 1983, at 5:00 p.m. Director Gray will inform the Chairman when the Planning Commission budget is to be reviewed. COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS: None. ADJOURNMENT AT 6:50 p.m., to the Workshop meeting of June 15, 1983, at 4:00 p.m., in Conference Room 3 and to the Regular Business meeting of June 22, 1983, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers. Ruth M. Smith, Secretary Planning Commission