Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1988/01/13 Tape No :286 Side 1 : 0-1055 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, January 13, 1988 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PPESENT: 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, Associate Planner Griffin, Senior Animal Control Officer Will and Director of Public Safety Winters 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. I~TRODUCTO~Y REMARKS Chairman Carson reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Fuller/Casillas) to approve the minutes of the meeting of Movember 4, 1987, as mailed. ORAL COMMU)!ICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS NATIONAL AVE)IUE ASSOCIATE'S LETTER REGARDING A ZONI)!G ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE REGULATIONS Associate Planner Griffin stated that a letter had been submitted by National Avenue Associates requesting the City consider a zoning text amendment and an Planning Commission Minutes 2- January 13, 1988 amendment to the Local Coastal Plan to allow a new car dealership and accessory uses for the Limited-Industrial property between Broadway and Fifth Avenue south of State Route 54. Staff believes the proposal has merit and recommends the Commission refer the matter to staff for a report and recommendation. Considerations include the large acreage (30 acres) involved, the relationship to the freeway, the extension of National City land uses and related uses already permitted in the I-L zone. It is believed that a report and recommendation can be returned to the Commission in approximately a month. ~ISUC (Tugenberg/Shipe) to refer to staff for a study and recommendation to be returned to the Commission at 4 later date. 1. PUBLIC HEA£ING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-88-24 REQUEST TO EXPAND VISTA HILL HOSPITAL AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MEDICAL CENTER DRIVE AND MEDICAL CFNTER COURT VISTA HILL FOUNDATION Associate Planner Griffin indicated that the item is a request to expand the Vista Hill Hospital to include a 30-bed, 10,724 square foot, two-story residential treatment center; a 35-bed, 11,936 square foot, two-story chemical dependency unit; two single-story classroom buildings containing 1,296 square feet and 1,221 square feet respectively; and 167 on-site parking spaces. Mr. Griffin outlined the three phases needed for completion of the project; pointed out that Medical Center Drive represents a natural boundary for the medical complex to the west and the potential for further expansion to the south; the project would be subject to review and approval of the Design Review Committee; is consistent with the balance of the medical complex; is in compliance with the General Plan and incorporates a Facilities Benefit District for construction of needed off-site improvements. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. ~ISUC (Tugenberg/Cannon) to find this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-37. MSUC(Tugenberg/Cannon) that based on findings centained in Section "E" of the staff report, to recommend that the City Council approve the request, PCC-88-74, to expand the Vista Hill Hospital at the southeast corner of Medical Center Drive and Medical Center Court subject to the conditions contained in the staff report. 2. PUBLIC HEAPING: PCM-88-15 CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 6.04 AND 6.08 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TNE NUMBER OF DOGS AND CATS PERMITTED ON R-l, R-2, R-3 AND PC ZONED LOTS Associate Planner Griffin noted that the item is in response to a request from Planning Commission Minutes 3- January 13, 1988 Ms. Patricia Bodi, dated September, 1987, for an amendment to the Municipal Code to provide flexibility in the number of animals permitted on an R-1 lot. Currently, three dogs and three cats per lot are permitted in the R-1 zone regardless of site circumstances; two dogs and two cats are permitted in the ~-3 zone; and no provision is made for the R-2 and PC zones. The amendment is sought to provide a consistent policy throughout all the zones. Staff recommends that exceptions to the present requirements be permitted by the Senior Animal Control Officer if it is determined that such factors as larger lot size and increased separation from adjoining homes will mitigate any adverse effects of a greater number of animals. This decision may be appealed to Council upon payment of a stipulated fee. Questions and concerns voiced by the Commission included: (a) If 7,000 square feet is the size of the typical R-1 lot, are there special conditions proposed for the single lots with 3,500 square feet (in the P-C zones in EastLake or Chula Vista Woods) or will the Senior Animal Control Office have the option of limiting the number of animals allowed? (b) Since more 6,000 and 5,000 square foot lots are being being developed in R-2 areas, perhaps the problem should be approached on the square footage involved rather than the zoning. (c) Is the species or the number of the animals being considered? Is six the ultimate number of animals allowed regardless of whether they are dogs or cats? (d) Should the size of the dogs be a factor, particularly with reference to sanitation, odor and noise? (e) What is the reason for amending the ordinance? Staff replied that: {a) The 3,500 square foot lot presently is allowed the same number of animals as the 7,000 square foot lot. (c) The current reading limits the number of animals to not more than three dogs and three cats and (d) size is not a factor. (e) This ordinance change would allow some discretion in those cases where clearly there is no impact on any adjoining resident, noise, odor or any other adverse circumstance, to allow an increase beyond the maximum specified at the discretion of the Senior Animal Control Officer. The real intent of the regulation is to preclude commercial kennels and their operation in the residential zones. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. - Planning Commission Minutes 4- January 13, 1988 Senior Animal Control Officer Bill Will suggested that if the ordinance were to be changed to accommodate a kennel in the City, it be allowed only on lot sizes of 20,000 square feet - the same size as is required to keep a horse in the City limits; that the 3,500 square foot R-1 lots be limited to the same as multi-family residences; namely, two dogs and two cats. In reply to whether he wanted more discretion in the enforcement of the ordinance based on the circumstances involved, or if he wanted the wording to be more restrictive in nature, Officer Will said he would like more discretion. Commissioner Casillas suggested that if Officer Will wrote up a summary of the problem with some recommendations, he include some experiences in terms of the weight of the dogs and related factors to clarify the issue. The Commissioner said he was thinking of what could happen in an R-3 zone with a 2-bedroom home, a very small yard and of the problems posed for both the property owners and the neighbors. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Grasser pointed out that staff had suggested that lots less than 7,000 sqt~are feet be categorized in Section B of Section 6.04.030. She noted that would solve the problem; however, discrimination between dog sizes would only aggravate the situation. MS (Tugenberg/Shipe) to continue the item until such time as staff could supply more definitive solutions. Commissioner Cannon suggested that staff come up with some solutions based along the line of the Commission's suggestions. Associate Planner Griffin noted that the item could be brought back to the Commission by the meeting of February 10, 1988. AMENDED MOTION: MSUC (Tugenberg/Shipe) to continue this item until the meeting of February 20, 1988. 3. OTHER BUSINESS a. INTERPRETATION OF TWO-CAR GARAGE REQUIREMENT - FRED DREW Associate Planner Griffin advised that Mr. Drew applied to the Zoning Administrator for a conditional use permit to add a second single-family dwelling to the R-1 lot at 1275 Banner through the dwelling-group provision of the )lunicipal Code. The dwelling-group provision provides that if the R-1 lot size is twice as large as the minimum required (7,000 sq. ft.), a second dwelling can be added. Mr. Drew was informed that a new two-car garage for both the new dwelling as well as the existing dwelling would be required per Section 19.22.170 of the Municipal Code. Mr. Drew disagreed with the Planning Commission Minutes 5- January 13, 1988 interpretation by staff and the City Attorney's Office and requested an interpretation by the Planning Commission. As the Section in question does not specifically address the application of that standard to "dwelling groups" but to additions to dwellings in general, it is appropriate for the Commission to express what their intent was in recommending the adoption of this provision originally. This is not a public hearing and there is no actual amendment to the Code before the Commission. In reply to Commissioner Cannon's query as to what action would transpire if the Commission were to be in agreement with Mr. Drew, Associate Planner Griffin said that staff would forward the Commission's recommendation along with the question to the City Council. If it was then agreed that the intent was to exclude dwelling groups from that provision, that would become the policy of the City and an ordinance amendment would be presented for clarification. Questions asked by the Commission included: (a) the size of the lot? Answer: 14,000 to 15,000 square feet; and (b) was there a consideration in the Montgomery Specific Plan of Banner Street being opened to Orange Avenue? Mr. Krempl stated that there had been discussion of that possibility as something to be studied, however, the issue was not relevant to the night's discussion. Director Krempl pointed out that based on the Municipal Code a second dwelling unit should not be authorized for an R-1 property unless the existing dwelling can be brought into conformance with present parking standards if feasible. In the issue under consideration, a second dwelling was being moved on posing a two-part question: (1) Whether the move-on dwelling necessitates a two-car garage and it is staff's opinion that it does; and (2) whether intensifying the utilization of the property is analogous to a remodel or expansion thereby requiring the original dwelling to have a two-car garage also. In answer to a question, Director Krempl replied that Mr. Drew had submitted an application proposing raising the move-on dwelling and putting the four garages underneath; however, he is still requesting an interpretation of the garage requirement from the Commission. Deputy City Attorney Moore indicated she had researched the ordinance and is convinced that when a person develops a "dwelling group unit", he must comply with th~ zoning code which requires there be a garage. The question becomes what was the specific intent of the Planning Commission at the time of the passage of ordinance. Namely, whether or not the original building would need an additional two-car garage as well as the added-on dwelling unit. She expressed concern regarding Mr. Drew addressing the Commission about his specific situation on the grounds that the item might return to the Commission at a later date in the form of an appeal of the CUP application. Attorney Moore suggested that if the Planning Commission had not fully considered this aspect when the ordinance was passed, perhaps a motion could be made to direct staff to provide an amendment to the ordinance that would clarify the situation. In response to an inquiry from the Chair, the attorney said Mr. Drew might address the Commission but not about specifics of his particular situation, the lot size where the buildings would be located and his problems with that. Planning Commission Minutes 6- January 13, 1988 Commissioner Fuller questioned why then had the Commission been provided such information in the packet. The Attorney replied that Mr. Drew had the right to send letters to the Commission and did this to express his concerns about the interpretation of the ordinance. She pointed out that the Commission cannot make a decision that relates specifically to Mr. Drew's situation. Commissioner Cannon agreed with the Attorney's interpretation. He noted the ambiguity would need to be addressed at a later date and that the action tonight was not a public hearing. Fred Drew submitted that there wasn't any original building permit with the City of Chula Vista as the home had been built when the land was unincorporated. The people had been promised if they incorporated they would be allowed whatever was safe, and that the City would help improve their homes. He had his home annexed and it was the only R-1 area. He has never had a garage and would never use it for parking purposes if he did have it. He was agreeable (reluctantly) to build the required two-car garage for the move-on property but there was ample paved space for family and guest car parking and he desired lawn and play space rather than four empty garages. He wished to provide living quarters for his presently hospitalized father and for his son's family. Pe outlined the difficulties he had in meeting the requirements of various departments; pointed out that the cross-hatched property had been part of his property at one time and had been ceded to form Banner Street; that when Orange Avenue was constructed, the Board of Supervisors had returned the property to him but not before SDG&E ran wires right through the center of the property which prevents him from building. In addition, he is being told that he must dedicate a portion of the other edge of the property to widen Orange Avenue which is an impossibility because of the location of other houses in the area. Opinions offered by the Commissioners included: Commissioner Cannon declared that, in his opinion, four garages on a small lot the size of Mr. Drew's is overkill; he knew of no R-1 lot in the City that has four garages; the usual circumstance in the City is at least a one-car garage per lot; he believed in bringing most buildings up to Code but forcing the addition of a two-car garage for a house that doesn't have one doesn't make sense; he did not believe that was the intention when the ordinance was passed; he did not think he voted for that anyway as he was against changing the original ordinance on other houses on the back lots. Commissioner Tugenberg said he did not believe he had been on the Commission at the time the ordinance was brought forward; he felt the property should be brought up to Code; the law says there must be a garage but does not stipulate how it must be used so some accommodation could be made so that Mr. Drew's children could utilize the garages in some other fashion than parking a car Discussion ensued about the "granny flats" ordinance, its requirements regarding garages; that under State Law some provision must be if an application for a "granny flat" was made; and that the ruling from the Attorney's office at that time indicated that as long as the City had the Planning Commission Minutes 7- January 13, 1988 dwelling group provision, the State's requirements were satisfied; and that in staff's interpretation a two -car garage is required for the two separate dwelling units under one ownership. Also discussed were garage conversions and replacement garages. Commissioner Carson stated that there should be a garage on the property but two two -car garages seems like overkill. Commissioner Fuller questioned the need to amend the ordinance to resolve this problem asking if there were no way within the confines of the ordinance to take exception based on individual circumstances. The Deputy Attorney replied that staff could return with an amendment to clarify the ordinance, or the applicant could apply for a variance from the current ordinance and the matter would come before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Cannon then asked if an application for a variance was not dependent upon whether the interpretation of the ordinance was "yes" or "no"; and that he did not feel adequate to make a determination as to how the ordinance should be worded and would need to rely on what the City Attorney would submit regarding the interpretation and indicating the ordinance wording in its entirety. Deputy City Attorney Moore said she could return with a memo taking into consideration the original intent and that this situation highlights the fact that there may be problems in the wording. She indicated she could return at the next meeting with the memo and would provide Mr. Drew with material ahead of time. MSUC (Cannon /Grasser) to continue the item to the meeting of February 27, 1988 for further staff input. 3. (b) BOARDS /COMMISSIONS /COMMITTEES ABSENTEEISM LETTER Director of Planning Krempl stated that the City Clerk had drafted up for policy consideration by the Council some guidelines on attendance for members of the City's Boards, Commissions and Committees (B /C /C). Council directed that this be presented to all bodies for input. The Commissioners indicated that absenteeism had been a problem several years ago when one Commissioner had been absent in excess of 50 percent. They also discussed that during 1987, there had been a number of times that no quorum was available (although part of the problem was caused by a seat vacancy); however, developers had been obliged to return several times. The Commission noted the financial burden placed on developers who bring several staff members to the meeting or fly representatives in from other areas and then must return because of lack of a quorum. Also to be considered was the waste of staff time and effort. Planning Commission Minutes 8- January 13, 1988 Commissioner Casillas indicated that the 75 percent attendance requirement might not suffice and that as the Council had been the appointing agent, the Council should admonish the offending members regarding their responsibility for attendance. Commissiuner Carson stated she was in favor of the 75 percent attendance requirement but that workshops should not be counted because of employment/responsibility conflicts. Commissioner Tugenberg said he would make the rule even more stringent, although he considered workshops to be of less importance than business meetings; it was his opinion that there should be no excuse except illness in the family or vacation and that anything over four absences is excessive. He remarked on the unfairness to applicants making a presentation since even if a quorum votes 3-2, it is a "no" vote. Commissioner Cannon commented that some indication should be made as to what is thought to be "in-conformance" for other bodies. It is his understanding that attendance in some of the B/C/C's is terrible. A 75 percent attendance requirement including the workshops seems reasonable to him. He would prefer some discretion by Council regarding the type of excuse being used. Failure to attend might call for a review by Council automatically. He agreed that if a person is unable to make that many meetings, the member should relinquish the seat. Commissioner Fuller agreed with a 75 percent attendance requirement, including the workshops, because they are designed to augment the meetings. She also agreed that Council should use some discretion about what they consider an excuse. She asked if the Planning Commission were unique in having regular business meetings and regular workshops. She was definitely in favor of 75 percent attendance at the regular business meetings since a person appointed by Council has made a commitment and if unable to fulfill that commitment, needs to be "counciled" out of the position. Further discussion ensued about attendance at the workshop; the fact that everyone has conflicts that occur; people in the community want to do something; the Council should be looking at the performance of the B/C/C; and the importance of punctuality at workshops so they can start on time. Commissioner Grasser said she considered the 75 percent attendance factor to be fair and she attends a lot of business meetings. Director Krempl said the Commissioner's comments would be passed to the Clerk via the Minutes. DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Director Krempl noted that the January Workshop would have one of the General Plan Consultants (JHK) addressing circulation and traffic considerations as they pertain to the three scenarios; also there will be some input on Scenario IV. Planning Commission Minutes 9- January 13, 1988 - The February workshop time is shifted to 4:00 p.m. for a joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop at the request of the Council. Discussion will include policy and areas of concern. The Director said he would like to get together with the Chair and any other member to structure an agenda which would also be reviewed by the Mayor. At the Council Meeting of January 12, Council adopted the Montgomery Specific Plan following a lengthy hearing. Main areas of concern were the same as voiced during the Commission hearing. He thanked Commissioner Fuller for making a statement on behalf of the Commission's support of the Plan. - Stated that Council had suggested a couple of areas for further study; namely, directions from staff, the Montgomery Planning Committee and the Planning Commission regarding interim ordinances or regulations when a particular project comes forward in compliance with existing zoning but which will be in conflict with the Plan designation. He noted that we would have that situation until plan implementation structure and proposals for bringing the zoning into consistency were brought before the Commission. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Grasser said she would not be at the next workshop as she would be on a business trip. Commissioner Shipe said he would be present and Commissioner Carson said she might be late, whereupon Commissioner Tugenberg offered to start the meeting at 5:00. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:45 p.m. to the Study Session Meeting on January 20, 1988 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3 Ruth M. Smith, Secretary Planning Commission WPC 4816v