Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1988/01/27 Tape No. 287 Side 1: All MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, January 27, 1988 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Carson,Commissioners Cannon, Casillas, Fuller, Grasser, Shipe and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Deputy City Attorney Moore, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Carson and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chairman Carson reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Tugenberg/Shipe) Cannon and Grasser abstained to approve the minutes of the meeting of December 16, 1987, as mailed. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None Fred Drew commended Susan Fuller on her selection as Citizen of the Year by the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce. Commissioner Grasser, having a conflict of interest on this item, did not take her seat at the dais but left the Council Chambers. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-88-G AND PCC-88-21 CONSIDERATION TO REZONE 5.26 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF HILLTOP DRIVE AND "I" STREET FRUM R-1 TO R-3-P-12 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 62-UNIT CONGREGATE CARE FACILITY - SHIVE NURSING CENTERS, INC. Associate Planner Steve Griffin stated two applications were involved (a) a zone change from R-1 to R-3 on the 5.26 acre parcel located at the northwest corner of Hilltop Drive and "I" Street and (b) construction of a 62-unit Planning Commission -2- January 27, 1988 congregate care facility with a 12,000 square foot amenities' building. Proposed are 62 units in 7 two-story structures surrounding the two-story amenities' building and 124 parking spaces. The units are designed to accommodate two unrelated individuals/couples in a common living arrangement. Minimum age for residents would be 55 years and the applicant has estimated the population at 90 residents. No on-site medical services are provided however a nurse may be employed to answer questions. The site is located on a prominent knoll elevated above and to the rear of adjoining single-family dwellings and two church sites. The property and surrounding areas are designated as Medium Density Residential {4-12 du/ac) and the project density is consistent with the upper level of that designation. The site has some physical separation from adjoining areas; however, due to the elevation of the site, it is visually prominent and overlooks the neighborhood. Staff believes that: (1) the bulk and scale of the project would appear overly massive and incompatible with the single-family single-story character of the area in addition to representing an intrusion into the privacy of the adjacent residents and although senior projects often generate less noise, traffic and parking demand than a standard project at the same density, the project seeks residents as young as 55 years; the units could easily accommodate more than two people and therefore would be more comparable to a standard adults-only complex than a typical senior's project or congregate care facility. Four letters of objection have been received citing the wish to maintain the R-1 single-family character of the neighborhood. For these reasons, staff recommends denial of the requests. Commissioner Carson expressed concern about the traffic level of service (LOS A) saying that traffic close to schools is very heavy before and after school sessions. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. The following persons spoke in favor of the project: Dave Wilson, 1907 Coe Place, CV 92013, representing First Church of Christ, Scientist, 41 "I" Street, said that the Board of the First Church of Christ, Scientist had no objections and that the general membership would be polled on February 9, 1988. Shirley Cook, 585 Hilltop Drive, 92010, noted that the project would be pleasing aesthetically; the EIR said the impact on the neighborhood and schools would be minimal; and the project would be compatible with the neighborhood. Kenneth J. Walter, 8669 F. San Alberto, Scottsdale, AZ, representing Shive Nursing Center, declared that the firm has been in geriatrics for 14 years; has built 20 facilities in 5 states with steady growth recorded; congregate facilities usually have 158 units but because of the site and the view, this Planning Commission -3- January 27, 1988 will be small. There will not be 240 people in the project and such a restriction can be placed in the condtional use permit; most residents will be 70 or older and will have one car if any; little traffic will be generated because most residents will use the bus transportation provided and the 12 to 15 employees will not generate much. Visual impaction in the area is minimized by the physical separations cited in the staff report; and if single-family homes were built, they would still overlook the area. They were told by staff to request R-3 zoning but a more restrictive zoning would be agreeable to them. A high-quality residence is planned so that people used to a certain life style would not be relocated to a secondary site but would remain in the type of surroundings to which they are accustomed. There will never be 100 percent agreement in the neighborhood; however, the Nursing Center can be a good neighbor and be good for the neighborhood. Every City will have to look to the needs of the elderly in a very short time. Joseph A. Delaney, Gray, Craig, Ames & Frye, 401 B Street, S.D. 92101, representing the Shive Nursing Center noted the concern expressed by neighbors that the zone change to R-3 will open the door to general apartment complex usage is not true and Shive is willing to agree to restrictions by which subsequent owners would be bound also. Two neighborhood meetings have been held. No one under 55 will be living in the Center; a maximum of 124 with an average of about 90 people will; and Shive would agree to have the number of members restricted in the conditional use permit. The 62-unit complex proposed is consistent with the General Plan which allows 12 du/ac, the rezoning is needed because it is now single-family and the R-3 pertains to multi-family; the density, however, is consistent with the General Plan. Commissioner Cannon informed Mr. Delaney that if the conditional use permit were granted restrictions could be conditioned, however once the zoning had been changed if a proposal were brought to the Commission to provide for multi-family not requiring a conditional use permit, the restrictions just outlined would-~t be in effect. Ken Kolk, 320 East "H", CV 92010, representing Mrs. Flynn, the property owner, commented that the project was a unique opportunity to benefit seniors in Chula Vista. The fears brought up by rezoning are not realistic because of the restrictions imposed. Council has been asked for zoning for the particular needs of Seniors, but it is not in existence; restrictions can be imposed so this type of use would be the only use permitted for this property. He asked what Chula Vista was going to do as the number of seniors increase; seniors are being regulated to a transitional life style. The matter was addressed by the Commission on Aging of Chula Vista who had spoken favorably on the project. Robert Berke, P.O. Box 8123, RSF 92067, a broker representing Shive Nursing Center, commented that the site itself was ideal for senior citizens; the architect has provided an elegant design which is not at all institutional but handsome and is designed for both the residents and the neighbors. It would enhance the area. Planning Commission -4- January 27, 1988 Those speaking in opposition included: Robert Steiner, 55 "I" Street, 92010, who noted that he had gathered the petition signatures; from his home the two-story complex is overly massive, intrudes on the privacy of the neighborhood, and is larger than conventional senior citizen homes. He contended that in reality what had been constructed were apartments whose rents will be greater than that of single-family homes. He expressed concern about the viability of the project and the subsequent possibility of a large apartment complex. He considered the activities to be significant "with 200-comings-and-goings out of two curb cuts"; and the fact that a restaurant was involved. Mr. Steiner stated the neighbors were not resisting development, but R-3 zoning. He reported that he was authorized to say that St. Marks Church is also opposed to the project. He introduced his attorney, Mr. Beam, to speak further on the subject. Craig Beam, Attorney-at-Law, llO West A St., S.D. 92101, stated he was a former public sector attorney and agreed with Commissioner Cannon's analysis of the restriction problem, pointing out that if the conditional use permit were revoked, the underlying R-3 zoning would remain in effect. As a practical point, he noted that if the project were approved and failed, the rental price on the units would be higher than most single-family homes. If it were possible to state that the property could be used only as a senior citizen center, then the structure would lie fallow and deteriorate. The neighbors would not like that and would be forced to accept the fact that it would have to be used as a condo or apartments. This type of project cannot be done successfully as an in-fill project. Bud Milke, 613 Corte Maria, CV 92010, said that the precedent set in changing the zoning and the impact on the community in the future is unknown; the area is now a quiet residential community and they would like it to remain so. Ted Palmer, 54 Whitney, CV, stated his opposition to the R-3 zoning. Sam Abraham, 58 Whitney, CV 92010, a 32-year resident, said he and the neighbors would like to maintain the quality of life in the neighborhood including the property values and benefits they have invested in their homes. Carolyn Mergan, 31 East Whitney, cited the heavy traffic from the school and asked why seniors would want to live in a family area. James Biddle, Jamul, said the St. Marks Church has not taken a vote for or against the project although a petition was circulated and many members signed. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MS (Tugenberg/Shipe) to recommend that City Council deny PCZ-88-6 and PCC-88-21 based on the findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report Planning Commission -5- January 27, 1988 Commissioner Tugenber9 said that at a workshop on the General Plan, the neighborhood had been indicated as one of the most stable in Chula Vista. He is in complete favor of maintaining the R-1 zoning. He suggested the developer contact the City for assistance in locating another more suitable site for a senior center. Commissioner Shipe recognized the need for senior housing but agreed with staff about the inconsistency, incompatibility and the impacts on the neighborhood such as traffic. He said he would support the denial. Commissioner Fuller remarked on the inappropriateness of changing the zone but was impressed by the actual project and the input from the Council on Aging. She declared we should support this type of retirement village and expressed hope that the City would be able to find a proper location for it. She agreed with the statements regarding the inappropriateness of in-filling in the City. Commissioner Carson said that the project was excellent but belonged elsewhere and the property should be maintained as it is or for single-family dwellings. The motion to recommend denial passed by a vote of 6-0 with Commissioner Grasser out. The Commission recessed from 8:13 to 8:17 p.m. Commissioner Grasser took her seat at the dais. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT PCC-88-15M APPEAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATION DENIAL OF A REQUEST FOR A LARGE FAMILY DAYCARE CENTER AT 431 ARIZONA STREET Principal Planner Lee noted that an application for an administrative permit to operate a large family daycare center at 431 Arizona Street for no more than 12 children was submitted by Janine Randolph. Because of the significant number of objections received from the property owners notified {within lO0 feet of site), a public hearing was noticed and held on November 19, 1987 before the .Planning Director/Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator denied the permit based on traffic concerns considered to be unmitigable because of the site's location at the terminus of an overlength cul-de-sac. This decision was appealed on the basis that any traffic problems so generated would be minimal. The Montgomery Planning Committee upheld the decision of the Zoning Administrator at the hearing of January 20, 1988, by a vote of 5-2. The City Attorney's office, however, has since issued an opinion that the adverse traffic finding cited by the Zoning Administrator could not be made because it is not specifically listed as an issue of consideration in the County Zoning Ordinance. The Commission is being asked to render a decision on the application for the large family daycare home based only on the conditions outlined in the County Zoning Ordinance (Section 6156(y)). Traffic per se cannot be considered but the noise created by traffic based on the location of this facility at the terminus of a long cul-de-sac can be included in the deliberations. Staff has Planning Commission -6- January 27, 1988 received numerous letters in support and in opposition from parents living both outside and within the neighborhood including {at the first hearing) a petition signed by 40 persons residing or owning property within the neighborhood citing increases in noise, traffic and adverse impacts on the neighborhood. Deputy City Attorney Moore addressed the Commission regarding the administrative permit saying that, "...State Law which is controlling here requires the City to grant a permit for large family day care centers so long as it complies with local ordinances concerning spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking and noise control. Since there are no local ordinances concerning traffic control, this cannot be a basis of denial of the permit. However, the applicant must still meet all the requirements found in Section 6156{y) before the permit can be granted. Also, this is an administrative permit not a conditional use permit or variance so it does not require a 5/7 vote by the Commission to overrule the Montgomery Planning Committee recommendation." The Commission stated that County Ordinance 6156{y) is very restrictive from the standpoint that once it has been ascertained that its very broad, general requirements have been met, the Commission has no alternative but to grant the permit. It was asked if there was the possibility of waiting for the Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance to become effective within the Montgomery area, but staff replied that the zoning phase would not be acted upon until the latter part of the year, that new ordinances applying to Montgomery have been adopted {such as the satellite dish) but effectuating City zoning standards as such was not anticipated in the immediate future. Staff confirmed that City standards for family day care facilities address parking, noise and other related issues but added that City standards are also of a general nature citing general guidelines for the Commission consideration. The County ordinance is not a discretionary permit but so designed that approval must be given if certain standards are met. The health and safety regulations regarding swimming pools were discussed; and it was asked if a determination had been made by staff of the facility's compliance with the conditions in 6156{y). Staff indicated satisfaction that all conditions had been complied with but wasn't sure about "b" (noise) and perhaps "e" (outdoor lighting). This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Speaking in support of the large family daycare home were: {1) Colleen Chafee, 41 Kingswood Drive, CV 92010; (2) Mary Lee Bartlow, 498 Elm Avenue, Imperial Beach, 92021; (3) Janine Randolph, 431 Arizona St., 92011; {4) Jon Randolph, 431 Arizona St., 92011; (5) Denise McLeroy, 948 Picador Blvd., S.D., 92154; {6) Bob Fox, 1466 Lilac Ave., CV 92011; (7) Sharon M. Newbery3, 4080 Debbyann Place, S.D. 92154; and (8) Bernadette Probus, Attorney-at-Law, 868 Caminito de Tatan, S.D. 92111, who requested rebuttal time also. Planning Commission -7- January 27, 1988 Testimony offered included: (1) Ms. Chafee read an excerpt from Good Housekeeping Magazine regarding the need for good family daycare homes and the development of the California Child Care Initiative (CCI) and its funding by joint corporate and Government entities to fulfill the need; children would not be playing in the street at arrival and departure times; and the daycare home would not decrease property values. (2) Ms. Bartlow has been operating a daycare home for ll years in Imperial Beach without any complaints; has clients bringing children from other cities; is speaking for the children who cannot speak for themselves and who need care; the extended family no longer exists; lengthy waiting lines for family daycare exist; Ms. Randolph is one of the finest daycare operators in the County. (3) Ms. Randolph explained that a different type of care is extended in a daycare home from that in the more institutionalized daycare center; parents have a right to have their children taken care of and she the right to operate a childcare center; family daycare providers do not get rich; the adverse effect is because of the anticipated fears and negative attitude of people who lack understanding and knowledge. (4) Jon Randolph commented that the issue is an emotional one in a tight-knit neighborhood; neighbors had been contacted regarding objections before the property was in escrow; opposition was not manifested until half-way throuph escrow; a few people got signatures from 40 people by telling them the facility was illegal and against the CC&Rs of the area. {5) Ms. McLeroy emphasized the strong need for daycare in San Diego and Chula Vista area; without Mrs. Randolph's daycare home she would be an AFDC recipient; family daycare is beneficial and the children are socially well developed and well cared for; it is extremely important that while children are separated from the parents they are cared for by supporting women. (6) Mr. Fox stressed that there are many working parents without the support of the extended family; to reduce the number of children from 12 to 6 makes the daycare home economically infeasible; the problem needs to be addressed now because it will come up again as permits come up for renewal. (7) Ms. Newbery noted the situation has escalated because those objecting do not have a personal need for daycare; she has stayed with Mrs. Randolph because she operates a good school; a parent does not take lightly the home into which he puts his/her children; a parent will travel as far as necessary to bring children to a good daycare home. {8) Ms. Probus stated that she was an attorney and cited her experience and background regarding child daycare homes. She reviewed the legislative background from the first daycare law in 1979, which balanced the personal property/personal privacy rights of neighborhoods and residents against the growing need for home daycare; noted the distinction in the Law between daycare homes and daycare centers and that the public policy of the State of California continues to be encouragement of large family daycare homes in residential single-family dwelling units; said her client has met all the conditions of the County permit and has been singled out; that 24 large family daycare homes have been licensed by the County in this City although it was doubtful if that many permits could be found on file in the City office. Ms. Probus contended that her client had started the daycare home as a legal business; the pool has met inspection standards; all County requirements have been met. She declared that the State Law is a mandate with the Legislation prohibiting CC&Rs pertaining to this activity. She emphasized the great and Planning Commission -8- January 27, 1988 growing need for this type of care as manifested by the fact that Senator Hatch has recently introduced a bill into Congress to provide $25-million for capital improvements of large family daycare homes. Those speaking in opposition to the daycare home included: (9) Patricia Stender, owner of 492 Arizona Street, currently residing at 3901 Mesa Vista Way, Bonita; (10) Kenneth Helie, 449 Arizona Street, 92011; (11) Don Engler, 438 Arizona Street, 92011; (12) Artie Byrn, 461 Arizona Street, 92011; (13) Jesus Valdez, 456 Arizona Street; (14) Susan Price, 474 Arizona Street; (15) Michael E. Dullea, owner of 432 Arizona Street; (16) Gerald Barlow, 809 Elm Street, Imperial Beach; (17) Helga Rindone, 400 Westby; (18) Marge Enclare, 480 Arizona Street; (19) Angela Dullea, co-owner 432 Arizona Street. Their concerns included: (9) Ms. Stender noted that as the street is a cul-de-sac, 40 additional cars daily cause a serious problem; it seems that her rights and those of the other long-term owners are superseded by those of the Randolphs. (10) Mr. Helie pointed out that precedents once granted seem to serve as precedents for further exceptions; if there are no written ordinances that can address the traffic per se, there must be some implied ordinances that cover this. (ll) Mr. Engler said the original meeting between the Randolphs and neighbors was at his home but the Randolphs could not understand the neighbors' objections; this is a zoning issue not whether there should be a daycare center; the neighbors object to the location at the foot of a cul-de-sac and the wisdom of placing a daycare center on a closed street; there is nothing to fight with if nothing can be said about traffic, personal rights to invoke the CC&Rs or against having a daycare center. The Attorney for the applicant had stated she has worked at both State and National levels to enact these statutes to impose on property owners and remove control over what can happen in the neighborhood, possibly the same restrictions can apply to half-way houses or homes for the aged; there are many place? more suitable for daycare centers; the issue is creation of a zoning variance to create a daycare center; request that the matter be referred back to the Montgomery Planning Committee with either location or traffic or something made a stipulation for the establishment of a daycare center within select locations. (12) Ms. Byrn indicated she had moved onto Arizona Street because it was a cul-de-sac and would have little traffic; the majority of the petition signers object to the daycare center being located on a cul-de-sac; it is not right to impose this on people who have lived here for 20 years and who don't want it. (13) Mr. Valdez indicated the overhead locator map and noted that there were 18-20 "nos" and only two "okays" and the "okays" were homes of teen-agers who cause most of the traffic; he objected to noise and traffic, not to the center. (14) Ms. Price said they had moved onto the cul-de-sac to avoid traffic which has increased; in the summer, children will be using the street more. She requested that an ordinance concerning traffic be enacted and the item referred back to the Montgomery Planning Committee. (15) Mr. Dullea claimed he had been to the other hearings but the rules were being changed at this one; Director Krempl and the Montgomery Planning Committee found there was a traffic problem; the City Attorney's office has made a determination that the health and safety code cannot apply but the focus must be on the County Planning Commission -9- January 27, 1988 ordinance affecting Montgomery. Since no conditions of approval for the daycare center were established because the Randolph's request was originally denied, and because this facility generates 40 cars daily (equating to 900/month or ll,O00/year), the item should be referred back to Planning to create reasonable standards concerning traffic. He also requested that the City consider enacting an ordinance to create reasonable traffic standards while this item is pending and these standards be applied under an Urgency Ordinance; otherwise, a later ordinance would not apply to this particular case on Arizona Street. (16) Mr. Barlow stated there was a cul-de-sac in Imperial Beach with an elementary school at the end which generates more traffic than 40 cars per day and that both the cul-de-sac and the school are doing well. (17) Ms. Rindone asked if the criteria for a good daycare center be that it is located on a through street? (18) Ms. Enclare stated that the location at the end of the cul-de-sac would be an infringement on the character and stability of the area and requested the item be referred back to Planning for additional consideration. (19) Ms. Dullea testified that her family had moved off Arizona Street because of the daycare center and the fact that 12 children would be right next to her bedroom and family room and that traffic would prohibit her retarded son from riding his bicycle in the street; she stated she had felt presssured when originally asked regarding approval but her husband had notified the Randolphs before escrow closed that they were in opposition. Her tenant signed the petition not knowing the backgound or details. Ms. Probus returned to the podium for the rebuttal and stated that "due process" requires that the rules not be changed in the middle of the case; that the item could be referred back to staff, but to pass a law specifically to deny her client the opportunity to utilize the activity would be a bill of attainder and is not allowed. She noted that the use was not an exception but was an allowable use under the County Ordinance as it exists under the health and safety code. She noted that as a mitigation measure her client is agreeable to have children walk the 1/2 block from the entrance of the cul-de-sac to minimize traffic. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MS (Grasser/Casillas) to approve the permit subject to conditions which would fulfill the requirements of 6156(y). Commissioner Fuller said she had observed the cul-de-sac early in the morning when she thought parents would be dropping off their children and again about 5:00 p.m. and considered it to be an ideal location for a family daycare home since it is centered at the end of the cul-de-sac, abuts only one property (the other side is open because of the drainage culvert in the rear), and fits perfectly into the neighborhood. She did note that there were a number of cars per home and has heard that there are 15 teenagers in the area and would assume that would cause considerable traffic. She is of the opinion that the Commission must address the issues that have arisen so people do not have to meet these emotional stumbling blocks to provide what is desperately needed in this community. The Commissioner said she is all for family daycare and for this application being processed. Planning Commission -10- January 27, 1988 Commissioner Tugenberg said he considered the traffic concerns to be emotional. Ne observed from 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and the greatest danger he saw was a teenager; it was so quiet, he wished he lived on a similar street; he believes this is an emotional item with no relevance. Commissioner Cannon said that the issue concerned an increase of six children to qualify for a major daycare facility and he does not see that as an important issue. He cited the County Ordinance and the broadness of the limitations imposed; namely, "(1) 'At least one on-site parking space available for an assistant' the driveway qualifies as an on-site parking space. (2) 'Adequate provisions be made to reduce noise impacts on surrounding properties' - this does not apply to automobiles but to dense landscaping, solid fencing, 6-foot high around activity areas, etc., the noise issue from this standpoint is a dead issue - we are discussing fencing not traffic. As the motion was made to comply with this ordinance, (he) believed the noise issue will be mitigated with regard to landscaping and fencing. (3) 'There exists an adequate area for temporary parking of__an lone) automobile where children may be safely loaded and unloaded' - there is no issue here either - the children can be let off at the driveway or go around the cul-de-sac and let them off two doors away - it is fully available and a nice spot to do that. I still have not said anything about traffic because it doesn't exist in here. That is the existing law we now have, and that is what we must apply. We can't make laws on our own even if someone comes forward with a good, valid suggestion to us. We have laws that we must apply. The requirement that everyone be noticed within 100 feet of the property has been done. Finally, the requisite that the lighting comply with Section 6324 and 6326 is also part of the motion." The Commissioner concluded that the law in this case has been applied "in every single issue and there is no way around it. It doesn't matter whether we agree with daycare centers or not. The State has mandated and the County has mandated certain things that we are bound to apply and I will vote for it because there is no other way around it." Commissioner Carson spoke of teenagers on her own cul-de-sac who generate a great deal of traffic. She deplored the unwise practice of permitting children to play in the street and spoke of the very strong possibility of a child being struck by a car. The motion passed unanimously. The Commission recessed from 9:41 to 9:50 p.m. 3. OTHER BUSINESS: INTERPRETATION OF TWO-CAR GARAGE REQUIREMENT - FRED DREW - CONTINUED Deputy City Attorney Moore reviewed the interpretation of Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.22.170 as outlined in her letter to the Planning Commission, dated January 22, 1988. She noted that Section 19.22.170 was created to provide that in instances when an individual intensifies the use of his property by additions to his existing dwelling, he would be required to Planning Commission -ll- January 27, 1988 provide a two-car garage to accommodate this intensification of use. To interpret this statute as not applying to instances in which the person is building onto his lot merely because it is not attached to the existing building, would be contrary to the intent of the ordinance. She declared that the conclusions of the Planning Department that Section 19.22.170 should apply whenever additions are made to an existing dwelling, either by constructing attached or detached additions, or by moving additional living space onto the property is a reasonable interpretation of the ordinance since in either instance, additional living space is being added to the property and carries out the legislative intent of Council in controlling the intensification of use of residential property by assuring that it does not adversely impact the existing neighborhood. The Deputy Attorney concluded that the Planning Commission could (1) agree with staff's interpretation of the ordinance; {2) instruct staff to prepare an amendment to the ordinance; or {3) disagree with staff's interpretation. Discussion between staff and the Commissioners included (1) that two garages are required for each dwelling unit since the ordinance requires that the existing building comply with current zoning laws; the requirement for garages for four cars is illogical and the ordinance needs reviewing; does every house in the area have to have a two-car garage? the next step for the applicant would be to process his conditional use permit for the dwelling group and to apply for a variance if desired. Mr. Drew objected that it was difficult to see how his property would "impact the neighborhood" as he was the only R-1 parcel in the area. Commissioner Cannon explained that the Commission could interpret only what was in front of it; the law could not be changed because a unique circumstance is presented; however, the variance procedure is designed specifically for unique circumstances and Mr. Drew appeared to have a good argument for a variance. 4. REPORT: REGARDING FORMATION OF PROPOSED OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO. 18 - RANCHO DEL SUR This item was withdrawn by the applicant - no action was necessary. DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS: Director Krempl said the Commission would be notified of the time of the Council Workshop on the General Plan (4:00 or 7:00 p.m.) and the background material would be provided them. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Fuller expressed concern about a statement made by Attorney Probus regarding the number of daycare home applications "discouraged" at staff level and asked for a report on the number of applications processed in the last year. Staff responded that the Randolph application was the first of Planning Commission -12- January 27, 1988 the two received by the City to date although packets of information had been issued to l0 or 12 families upon request. The difference between the County's administrative permit and the City's conditional use permit process was explained as essentially one of nomenclature. The lengthy brief submitted by Attorney Probus was delivered the day of the Montgomery Planning Committee meeting and there had been no opportunity to get an opinion from the City Attorney prior to the meeting time. ADJOURNMENT AT 10:21 to the Regular Business Meeting of February 10, 1988 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers Ruth M. Smith, Secretary Planning Commission WPC 4882P