Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1997/02/12 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:03 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, February 12, 1997 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Tarantino, Commissioners Davis, Thomas, Tuchscher, and Willett COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Ray STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner Bazzel, Associate Planner Miller, Assistant Planner Nevins, Environmental Resource Manager Bamberger, Community Development Specialist Tapia, Assistant City Attorney Moore PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Tarantino led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag and a moment of silent prayer. MOTION TO EXCUSE MSC (Willett/Davis) 5-0 to excuse Commissioner Ray due to personal obligations. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Willett/Davis) 5-0 to approve Planning Commission minutes of November 20, 1996, December 11, 1996, and January 8, 1997. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Tarantino reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PC Minutes -2- February 12, 1997 ITEM 1. PRESENTATION BY BARBARA BAMBERGER/SUSAN HERNEY ON CARBON DIOXIDE REDUCTION PLAN Environmental Resource Manager Bamberger asked Susan Herney, the Chair of the Citizens Task Force, to speak before the Commission. Susan Herney, 1103 Red Maple Drive, Chula Vista, stated that she had served as Chair for two years on the Citizens Advisory Task Force for the City's Carbon Dioxide Reduction Plan. There were 25 citizens serving on the Task Force. Ms. Herney outlined the steps the Task Force took and how the Task Force worked together to bring the 20 measures forward. Environmental Resource Manager Bamberger noted that Chula Vista is involved with a consortium of 11 cities developing the carbon dioxide reduction plans throughout the United States, Canada, and Europe. The plan focuses on the relationship between local land use and transportation policies that directly effect the amount of energy we consume within our community. In 1994, Chula Vista formed a Citizens Task Force that incorporated a broadbased participation in development in the plan. Ms. Bamberger noted that the plan was designed as a tool which would be implemented over the course of the next five to 10 years. The core of the plan is a set of 20 measures recommended in the report to the Planning Commission. She stated that the plan was noticed and had gone through a 90-day environmental review process. She then discussed the technical aspects of the plan. The Commissioners complimented the Task Force, Barbara Bamberger, and particularly Susan Herney on the Plan. Commissioner Tuchscher complimented the Task Force and staff for once again putting Chula Vista in the forefront of planning for a long-term future. Commissioner Willett asked if the Plan would be available in the Library. Ms. Bamberger stated it was in the Library, Telecenter, and in the City Clerk's office. In response to someone in the audience, Commissioner Willett stated that the name of the Plan was the Proposed Chula Vista CO2 Reduction Plan dated August 1996. Barbara Bamberger gave her telephone number for use by anyone who desired further information. Commissioner Tuchscher stated he had some concerns about the costs associated, projected costs, and the unknown costs for implementing the Plan. He felt, however, that should be something the Economic Development Commission should address. ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING: SUPS-96-06; REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONTINUE OPERATING A TEMPORARY TRUCK TERMINAL/TRAILER STORAGE YARD AT 2400 FAIVRE STREET - California Multi-Modal, Inc. and H.G. Fenton Materials Company (continued from meeting of 12-11-96) Associate Planner Miller recommended that this item be continued to a date uncertain. APCD was now involved because of the complaints related to dust being generated in the area. This PC Minutes -3- February 12, 1997 may necessitate revision of the Initial Study and the Negative Declaration, as well as certain conditions in the resolution of approval. Staff was in contact with the applicant, who had requested the continuance. MS (Tuchscher/Davis) to support the continuation of SUPS-96-06 to a date uncertain. Chair Tarantino stated he had one speaker slip for the public hearing. Attorney Moore stated that the person who wished to speak could speak to the continuance only. Mr. Soils said he would speak to the issue when it was brought back before the Commission. Mr. Miller stated that once the date had been set, staff would send out a public notice advertising the public hearing. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Ray excused) to continue to date uncertain. ITEM 3. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-96-13; REQUEST TO INCREASE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE TO 47% FOR AN OVERHEAD SHADE CLOTH STRUCTURE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH HOME ORCHID GROWING AT 1341 PARK DRIVE, WITHIN THE R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE - Eugenia Hammond (continued from meeting of 1-8-97) Commissioner Tuchscher noted that he had not been present at the previous hearing. This was a new hearing entirely. He had read the minutes from the previous meeting. Attorney Moore noted that he could participate. Assistant Planner Nevins stated this was a m-hearing from a previously considered request in September 1996 when the Commission considered a request for approximately 61% of lot coverage in conjunction with setback variances for the structure. The vote was 3-2 for denial. Since a vote of four members is required for a decision, the Code provides that the applicant has the opportunity of either having the item reheard by the Planning Commission or by the City Council, with no charge. The applicant had determined that she would direct the application back to the Planning Commission in a revised format. The current request proposed the structure out of the setbacks and a 47 % lot coverage. Previous Code enforcement violations regarding the business had been resolved and there were no new complaints. There was no issue involved with the home occupation. Based upon the minimal area proposed and the fact that the applicant had proposed to remove the structure from the sideyard setbacks, staff believed that impact upon neighbors would be minimal, and recommended approval of the current proposal subject to the conditions listed in the draft msolntion. At Commissioner Thomas' request, Ms. Nevins showed him the coverage area. The area to be removed was about 668 sq. ft. Commissioner Davis asked if this was a reduction from the original request of 61% to 47% coverage. Ms. Nevins confirmed. PC Minutes -4- February 12, 1997 Commissioner Willett noted that a trailer had been parked for some time in one corner. He asked if the area covered between the trailer and the plant house was included. Ms. Nevins stated that would not be included. She showed a comparison of the previous and current proposals. Commissioner Tarantino said there had been some concern about the razor wire around the perimeter. He asked if them was a Code violation with that. Ms. Nevins stated there were no regulations pertaining to razor wire or prohibition of it. It was allowed. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Glen Burns, 1329 Park Drive, CV, said they had lived in their home for 27 years. He admired Ms. Hammond and had never had a problem. He supported the project. Merideth Campbell, 226 Church Ave., CV, attorney for Ms. Hammond, said Ms. Hammond's property abutted Palomar Park, the worst park in the City of Chula Vista for vandalism, graffiti, drugs, etc. He proceeded to delineate what this public hearing was "not about." He stated the only issue was whether she could continue to maintain the shade cloth she had had for over 15 years on her property. The shade cloth had zero impact and could not be seen from the street. It was absurd that she had to come to the City to beg to put up shade cloth that the City had determined somehow to be a structure. The shade cloth allowed 57% of light to come through; how could that be a structure. He understood the supporting poles were considered structures, but did not understand shade cloth being a structure. There was no interference with any light or air. It was open on three sides; her lot abutted the park, and is on a corner and has a front yard and side yard. He would not like to see this turn into a zoning code enforcement in hopes of restricting a legitimate home business. Steve Palina, 176 Montgomery St., CV, said he had been to the area and had not seen the shade cloth. He favored letting her grow her orchids, and establishing something for the City of Chula Vista and the community. Rudy Cesena, 11410 Caminito Armida, SD, stated his elderly aunt living on Cassman Street would like her collection of plants expanded and, therefore, he was interested in the shade cloth. His aunt's would be much smaller. As President of the Botanic Garden of San Diego, one of their major promotions was the benefit of horticulture to people, not only to their mental but physical well-being. Because of the wide variety of orchids, they provide continuous color throughout the year. Melanie Hammond, 1341 Park Drive, CV, stated that shade cloth was only really noticeable to the plants. When she was contacting the neighbors to have them sign their petition, none of them even knew the shade cloth existed, except for the two attending the meeting. David Wynne, 1337 Park Drive, CV, lives on the east side of the Hammond residence. He had nothing against orchids or small businesses in the home. He was concerned that the PC Minutes -5- February 12, 1997 improvements had been done before first consulting him or having permits. He showed slides taken from his kitchen window showing the razor wire on the side of the fence, which he had to view every day, and the amount of shade cloth involved and where it draped over his fence. He had asked the Hammonds to put up bushes or landscape so that he would not have to look at it. He did not understand why they needed the razor wire. He also noted that flood lights on the Hammond residence lit up his entire back yard. He did not see any orchids from his house; all he saw was the structure going from one end of her property to the house. He had been trying to work with Ms. Hammond but had not had a very good response. Commissioner Davis asked if the razor wire was also on the side fence. Mr. Wynne said the razor wire was around the entire yard. Commissioner Davis said Mr. Wynne's complaint was more about the flood lights and the razor wire than about the shade cloth. Mr. Wynne said the shade cloth was already extended all the way to the fence, and the fence was broken in certain areas. He would like to see the whole shade cloth pushed back. Corwin Bell, 1320 Park Drive, CV, said he lived across the street from Ms. Hammond. He had no problem with orchids or her business at the present level of operation. He was concerned with the razor wire. He applauded her proposal that reduced the area covered by shade cloth. He asked that if the Planning Commission grant the variance, that the reduction be enforced, including removing things that covered the property such as the trailer. He agreed that Ms. Hammond was a very nice person and was very good at raising orchids. He supported Mr. Wynne in his opposition to razor wire around the fence. He had attended this meeting and written a letter in Mr. Wynne's behalf. He had been told it was a foregone conclusion that the variance would be approved with the reduced coverage; however, he would ask that as a condition to granting the variance that the Planning Commission ask that Ms. Hammond agree to finding some other measure of security for her crop than the razor wire. Commissioner Tuchscher noted that nothing is a foregoing conclusion with the Planning Commission. He assured Mr. Bell that the Planning Commission took public testimony very seriously in their deliberations. Maria Bell, 1320 Park Drive, CV, showed some slides showing parked cars which were disabled, storage of materials, etc., and stated that Ms. Hammond was running a commercial business on a residential street. Ms. Bell stated that Ms. Hammond had total disregard for the neighborhood and the neighbors. She felt Ms. Hammond should move her business to another location. This was not a commercial zone. It was a residential zone. Wanda Jones, 1299 Raven Ave., CV, said she had taken four of her five children to the park only during early hours, because it definitely seemed a rowdy place to go. She never knew this business was there until last year when she and another neighbor were going around the neighborhood to get a petition signed for another matter. She hoped Ms. Hammond could rectify this, because neighborhood relationships were long lived. She sympathized with Mr. Wynne. She would not like to look out at razor wire. She felt the flood lights added extra protection. PC Minutes -6- February 12, 1997 Commissioner Thomas asked for clarification from staff or the City Attorney regarding the Planning Commission's purview. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated tonight's action was strictly on the lot coverage. Regarding the home occupation issues, if there is a complaint filed with the City on the home occupation and its operation, staff would look into that. Regarding the issues raised that evening, it could be looked into as it relates to the Ordinance. Chair Tarantino noted that the following speaker was the applicant. The Planning Commission usually gave the applicant more time, so she would be allowed six minutes. Genie Hammond, 1341 Park Drive, CV, showed the plants under the shade cloth and noted the light, air, and water was not being blocked. She showed a couple of plants that were the bulk of the type of plants she owned. The omhids were not her main income, but just augmented her income so she could stay home and take care of her disabled mother. The shade cloth provided a legitimate covering for orchids as they could not be grown in full sun. It allowed light, air, and water through; also, it was basically holes. Fifty-three percent was open holes and could be cut with paper scissors. Her property was the only one in the subdivision that was open to the public on three sides, sits below the street, the front and side faces the street, 24 hours a day cars are coming and going as well as people; the park is supposed to be closed, but was not. It was open. There were many problems in the park which her house backed on to. It was considered the worst park in Chula Vista by the park rangers and by the staff. The same Codes limiting the structural density to 40% of her lot size also state 50% on smaller lots of land. In 1993 the Code was revised to allow 45% of lot coverage on her size lot, yet she was still being quoted the 40% lot coverage. She did have permits for the greenhouse and the patio at the time they were installed, as well as the remodeling on her house. She was asking for 2% to 7%, depending on which Code was used, over the allotted lot coverage with an open weave fabric that allowed 53% light, air, and water. She did not feel a variance should even be needed. She felt the City needed to come into the 21st Century and set new Codes for what is currently available readily, the new products that were being made and sold at Home Depot and Home Base to anyone who wants them. She felt that until that time, logic and common sense and understanding of the building materials that were currently sold to the general public in tremendous quantities needed to be in place. She did not feel there was an excess lot structural bulk coverage in this particular case requiring a variance. However, if the Planning Commission felt the shade cloth was a structure, she asked that the variance be granted. Regarding the comments by Mr. Wynne, Ms. Hammond said that her greenhouse was there long before he moved in and so was the shade cloth. In order to take that photograph, he had to stand on his retaining wall. The security lights were suggested by the Police and were aimed directly down onto her property. There was a slight overflow into Mr. Wynne's yard, but the entire yard was not lit up. None of the fences were falling down. Ms. Hammond showed some slides showing the shade cloth, rolled up and down. PC Minutes -7- February 12, 1997 Chair Tarantino asked Ms. Hammond to speak to the PVC pipe which was attached to the fence. Ms. Hammond said it was two pieces coming down in front of the fence on her side. The shade cloth was stapled on a 2x2 rolled down coming directly with the top of the fence. It did not hang over into Mr. Wynne's yard. Two screws with a plastic cap clip held it against the fence. Commissioner Willett commended Ms. Hammond on the noteworthy awards she had received. He was concerned about the overhang into the neighbor's yard and the fact that he had to look at the razor wire. He asked if Ms. Hammond proposed to leave it there. Ms. Hammond stated that in order to photograph the razor wire, Mr. Wynne had to come up and look down. The razor wire is on the inside of the property and only extended about 6" above the fence. She had been burglarized three times during January and February of the previous year. She then put the razor wire on the inside of the fence and was not sticking up on top of the fence with the exception of directly across her firewood storage space at the back of the park side. Commissioner Willett asked if the PCV piping and the overhead protruded over the fence. Ms. Hammond answered negatively. She also noted that when the shade cloth was rolled down, the 2x2 rested directly on top of the fence just inside. Commissioner Willett asked if Ms. Hammond had made any effort to tone down the lighting. Ms. Hammond said the sensor lights on that side only came on at night when something was going through. They were aimed directly down, and the light did not light up Mr. Wynne's entire back yard. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Chair Tarantino clarified that the Planning Commission was only considering the variance dealing with the lot coverage dealing with the shade cloth. Commissioner Willett asked staff to point out the area that would be reduced as the applicant proposed. Ms. Nevins explained what would be removed. Chair Tarantino asked if the areas to be removed were currently existing. He asked if the modification had been done or if it was going to be done. Ms. Nevins assumed it was a proposal, but she deferred to the applicant. Regarding the shade cloth in the setback area, Chair Tarantino said that even though they were roll up and roll down, they were to be eliminated under the new proposal. Ms. Nevins answered that it would bring it out of the setback, so there would be no setback variance. Chair Tarantino stated that he was not hearing that from the applicant. He was hearing that they were rolled up and that was why they were not there, but the intent was to keep them there. Ms. Nevins replied that she would have to ask the applicant. They were not shown on the plan, so that was what staff was looking at. Attached to the fence, there is a setback issue. If they PC Minutes -8- February 12, 1997 are not within the setback area--in this case, 3 feet--there is no setback issue. If they are attached to something or otherwise on an overhead in that setback area, there is a setback issue. There can be no structures within the required setbacks. Chair Tarantino asked if that included PVC pipe bolted to the fence or anchored to the ground that supports the shade structure when it's rolled out. Ms. Nevins answered affirmatively. Since Mr. Campbell, the attorney for Ms. Hammond, wished to speak, Chair Tarantino reopened the public hearing. Attorney Campbell thought there had been a misunderstanding. Staff was talking about a permanent structure versus a portable or moveable situation. He asked if a rolled-up shadecloth, similar to a window shade, was a vertical coverage at that time. Would an umbrella stuck in that same spot be a structure. Chair Tarantino stated that if it was anchored, it would be a structure. He asked for staff's interpretation. Commissioner Tuchscher stated that the confusion was what was the proposal. He questioned whether the rolled-down or removable shade areas was a structure. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated that he was not aware of any clarification in the Code in this type of issue. He thought it was up to the Commission's discretion. It was his understanding with the application that was submitted that there was no proposal to have a structure in that particular area. The fact that it rolls down and rolls back up, he did not know the frequency--if they were doing this daily or if it was rolled up in the summer and put down in the winter. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if it was fair to say that staff had not fully interpreted that because it was not part of the application? Mr. Lee was not aware that that was their particular intent. He asked that the applicant describe the frequency. Mr. Campbell said it was done on a seasonal basis--it was down all summer and up during the winter, depending on where the sun comes from. It is a vertical, not a flat coverage. Mr. Lee stated that if it was vertical, it would go straight down, not necessarily to the fence. Chair Tarantino noted that it would not be anchored to PVC pipe. Mr. Campbell said it would have to be out of necessity. It had to have something to hold it up. Chair Tarantino asked the City Attorney to comment. Attorney Moore stated that staff had not looked at that issue, and she could not address the issue that night. It was her understanding that their application showed that those things would be removed, and it was based upon that that staff did their analysis. Chair Tarantino had some concerns. His interpretation was that during the summer when the shade was rolled out, it would exceed the coverage. PC Minutes -9- February 12, 1997 Commissioner Tuchscher said there was a setback issue that staff had not analyzed, and whether staff would recommend for or against the Planning Commission had no way of knowing. Commissioner Davis asked Attorney Moore if the Commission could move forward and act on the application as it was shown. Attorney Moore said they could, but the problem was that there was some ambiguity as to whether that was in fact what the applicant was proposing. If the applicant was changing the form of what they were proposing, perhaps a continuance may be in order for staff to review the new proposal. Commissioner Willett said to hold the shade, and the word is "structure"--structure is something that is rigid, that is holding the shade cloth up. If you roll the shade cloth down, the mechanism is still there. The way he understood it, the structure--the piping--is still outside of the variance range. Mr. Campbell said Mr. Willett was talking about square inches. It was like measuring a wall. Commissioner Willett said that his interpretation of a structure was that he was going to attach something to it. That rigid piece can be construed as a structural element. Mr. Campbell agreed. If the PVC was measured, Ms. Hammond was far under the 40%. Commissioner Willett clarified that the structure holds the shade that comes across and that at that time it made up the coverage. If the shade is back, the structure is still there and is still in the area of contention along the side of the property line. Mr. Campbell stated that he had researched the definition of a structure. It says "any item that rises out of the ground." He asked if you measure a wall of a house, or do you measure the floor plan of the house to determine the square footage? In this situation, apparently we're measuring a wall and adding that to a horizontal plane to determine square footage. Mr. Lee did not think there was any intent to measure the wall, and if this was a rolled-down item that goes vertically that goes down to the ground, it was not an issue. But if it was going at an angle over to the fence, then it becomes a roof. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if Mr. Lee could give a definition of setback. He understood nothing could be built there. It could be landscaped. Mr. Lee replied that Mr. Tuchscher was correct in that it was limited in terms of what could go into that area as far as both height and material. In this case, up to a 6' fence is allowed in the rear sideyard area, but beyond that you get into the definition of a structure. If the shade cloth comes over to the setback line and stops and the need for the cloth was at that location, he was not sure why the rolldown portion could not extend from there straight down to the ground. Why did it have to go back to the fence? PC Minutes -10- February 12, 1997 Mr. Campbell said they were hung up on what was permanent and what was temporary. If you have a temporary structure in the back yard, that was fine. But if it was anchored and no longer portable, it is a structure. In this case, it was part structure and part portable. He compared it to a porch with the center out. The shade cloth was 53% full of holes; do you delete 53% of the structure because it was open to air and light? Mr. Lee stated that staff had offered their findings in support. The issue was that if their proposal was to extend from the edge of the structure to the fence. Mr. Campbell stated it was not. He stated that he had spoken with Mrs. Hammond, and she would comply with any setback requirement. If that was an interference with the setback, she would comply with the setback ordinances. She did not have a problem with that. It had not been discussed before. Commissioner Davis asked Mr. Campbell if the proposed plan reflected what Mrs. Hammond had applied for. Mr. Campbell answered affirmatively. Commissioner Davis concluded that there were no additions or changes, Mr. Campbell had stated that Mrs. Hammond would comply with the setback. There had been some question about the two things that were in the original setback plan that Mrs. Hammond thought maybe she could still have, because they were temporary or whatever. Mr. Campbell said there was that possibility. Maybe he could get together with the City Attorney and iron out some of the definitions they were dealing with. If an item can be temporary and go with the City's definition of temporary, then probably a beautified area of that could be done. She did not want to interfere with the neighbors. But if the City Attorney's office says, no, that is still a structure and that is still within the yard coverage, so be it. Commissioner Tuchscher stated that he was ready to deliberate and asked the Chair to close the public hearing. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tuchscher thanked the interested public for their comments. His biggest concern was with the setback. He questioned staff regarding razor wire and why there was not an ordinance that dealt with security and razor wire. He was not referring to this item in particular, but to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Lee said that the issue had never surfaced. There had been one instance approximately 15 years before when broken glass bottles had been placed on top of a wall at an apartment complex. At that time, the City Attorney's office advised that particular developer that they were at great risk in terms of someone injuring themselves and filing suit. There was no prohibition as far as the City was concerned. It was something that could be considered, but he was not sure if it should be in the zoning regulations or if it was something the City Council would consider as part of the Municipal Code. Staff would have to research it. He did not feel it should be placed in a residential area because of the risk. PC Minutes -11- February 12, 1997 Commissioner Tuchscher asked the City Attorney if it was possible to put stipulations or conditions on the variance before them. Ms. Moore stated they could as long as it related to the variance. There were conditions currently on the variance related to the lot coverage. Commissioner Tuchscher stated that the variance was a discretionary approval and the Planning Commissioners had the ability to add whatever conditions they could relative to that particular issue. Ms. Moore concurred. Commissioner Tuchscher said there was no ordinance in the current Zoning Ordinance relative to razor wire and no design guidelines. He asked the City Attorney if it would be possible to add a condition or stipulation that any future such ordinance or zoning would apply in this case? Attorney Moore did not advise Mr. Tuchscher to do that. She did not feel it was technically related to the variance. If there was a violation of the Municipal Code, that could be referred to staff. There may be issues with fire safety with respect to having razor wire that could restrict the Fire Department from entering the property in case there was a fire. It was something that needed to be looked into. Commissioner Tuchscher did not want to create a situation where they had "grandfathered" a certain condition, especially since they now knew it existed and were creating future ordinance, perhaps, to deal with it. He was sensitive to the security issue. He thought, however, there were more aesthetically pleasing and safer ways to deal with it, especially when it ran along a property line and a fence between neighbors and had created some problems. He asked staff to bring the razor wire before Council. There should be a method by which to do that. Attorney Moore stated that regarding the razor wire, she did not believe that staff was making the representation that it was necessarily legal now, but that staff was saying it was something that needed to be looked at. Mr. Tuchscher felt that health and safety was the genesis of that. Relative to the park and how unsafe it was, Commissioner Tuchscher asked that staff have the Parks & Recreation Department look into some method by which to improve that situation. He was extremely pro business, but he believed that a business run in a residential area must be held to a higher standard than someone who was just living in a house. Running a business in a residential area is a privilege, and he thought the owner had an obligation to run a clean operation and deal with any concerns that their neighbors had. He supported staff's recommendation as long as the setback issue was clear and clearly defined in this particular circumstance. Commissioner Davis asked staff if in 1993 the floor area ratio was increased to 45%. Mr. Lee said there was still confusion over lot coverage and floor area ratios. The lot coverage was still 40%. There was a floor area ratio of 45% which allowed people to add square footage on the second floor if they had already used a 40% maximum lot coverage. Typically someone may have as much as 30% lot coverage and add another 15% on the second floor, half of the lower floor, to reach a floor area ratio of .45. That was the difference. PC Minutes -12- February 12, 1997 Commissioner Davis thought the floor area ratio was the footprint. Mr. Lee clarified that the total floor area as it relates to the lot area is the floor area ratio, not the footprint. MS (Willett/Thomas) concurred with staff's recommendation with the condition that the vertical structure that holds the awning, the PVC pipe, 2x4 or any vertical structure, is not in the setback area--clarifying that there would be no part of the structure fastened to the fence, which is in the right side. He was referring to the vertical that held the cloth. Commissioner Tuchscher asked the maker of the motion to add that it was the Planning Commission's interpretation that it was a structure. There could be a lot of argument back and forth. It was not air; it was something and had some effect visually. In his opinion, it was a structure. The maker of the motion and the second concurred. Commissioner Davis did not feel it was a structure. VOTE: 5-0 to approve with the stipulation as stated by the maker that it is a structure and nothing should be in the setback zone. Chair Tarantino asked the maker if that was correct. Commissioner Willett concurred. ITEM 4. PUBLIC HEARING: SUPS-96-02; REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN AND OPERATE AN AUTOMOBILE BODY AND DETAILING SHOP AT 2952 MAIN STREET IN THE IL-P (LIMITED INDUSTRIAL - PRECISE PLAN) ZONE - Ms. Mereedes Brambila Associate Planner Miller presented the staff report, using slides and overheads to show the land uses in the immediate area. He noted that as one of the conditions of the Design Review, the rear wall of the building would be on the property line and ultimately the whole alley would be cut off from access to this parcel. Mr. Miller stated that staff recommended approval of the project as proposed and recommended for approval by the Design Review Committee and Resource Conservation Commission, and recommended that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation for approval to the Redevelopment Agency pursuant to Resolution SUPS-96-02. Commissioner Willett asked if the proposed lighting would shine on the residences on either side of the unit. Associate Planner Reid stated that staff had spoken with the applicant's representative who had responded that, because the northerly-most wall would be 18' high, the light which would be in the front would not impact the residents in the back. Commissioner Willett questioned the impact on the residences on the east and west sides. Mr. Miller asked that the applicant's designer, Mr. Quamada, address that in the open hearing. PC Minutes -13- February 12, 1997 This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Manuel & Mercedes Beambila, 156 Spruce Rd., CV 91911, said they owned the property and wanted to make improvements and have new jobs for people. Juan Quamada, Quamada Design Group, 303 Third Ave., CV 91910, stated that Mr. & Mrs. Beambila had been community members, residents and business owners for the past 30 years. They had worked with staff in trying to resolve all the issues that might impact the residents on the north side. The properties west and east were still residences, but were legal non- conforming and were in a transition area that would eventually grow into a commercial or industrial area. Commissioner Willett recognized that the land uses were non-conforming on either side, and applauded the applicant for putting a business in the area. During the time of build-out, how were they going to protect excess lighting on the east side. Mr. Quamada noted that the first phase was on the west side. Mr. Willett confirmed that the north side would be open to the residents on the other side of the alley. With the Police requirement for the increased lighting, it would impact the residents across the alley. Mr. Quamada replied that the lighting could be controlled by shielding it and putting it on their property. It would be security lighting only. There would not be any business or operation at night. Commissioner Willett commented that there would be no paint booth or painting on site. Mr. Willett asked if the Code required them to put in a grease trap or something to collect the residue. Mr. Miller said it was State law, and there was no option on that matter. Mr. Quamada stated there would be no mechanics or engine repair on site. It was limited to changing parts, rather than body work. Lourdes Flores, 437 Montgomery St., CV 91911, lives north of the project location. The people on Zenith were concerned about closing the alley. She had circulated a petition, and most of the people were Spanish and could not read the notice. They were concerned about fumes, noise, and the wall was going to block the sun and air. She was not against the business, but against having the environment polluted. She did not think the residents would vote to close the alley. The area was zoned R-3. If the alley was closed, there would be no access for some of the people. She was concerned about the children and the elderly. There were elderly people in the mobilehome park. She was concerned about the fumes. MAACO was already in the area. Chair Tarantino asked staff to clarify the closing of the alley and to comment on the environmental and the public noticing issues. PC Minutes -14- February 12, 1997 Mr. Miller stated that the alley would not be closed as part of this project. The proposal was to build the northerlymost wall on the property line where the existing fence was located. There would be no change to the alley. Mr. Miller invited Mr. and Mrs. Flores to the Planning Department to view the plans. Ms. Flores asked if the proposed building would be as high as the MAACO building. Mr. Miller replied that this building would be approximately 10 feet lower. Ms. Flores questioned whether there would be any painting or solvents used. Right now there was no intention of having any painting done there, but she was concerned about the future. Associate Planner Reid said that to the best her knowledge, there was no intention of putting in a paint booth in the future. Mr. Quamada, the designer, said they were trying to give the alley to the residents. A lot of the residents in the alley accessed their homes through the alley. With the building on the property line, it would not affect the homes along the alley, it would be more private, and the building itself would be a buffer between the activity during the day of the body shop and the residents. They were not planning in the future for painting at this location. Ms. Flores asked if the buffer was because of the noise. Mr. Quamada replied that it was because of the noise, visual impact because of the cars, and light. It would give the residents more privacy also. It was unfortunate that an I-L property abutted residential property, but they were trying to solve and mitigate the problems. Ms. Flores stated they were concerned about the noise, because they already had noise coming from Nelson Sloan. Regarding the noticing, Mr. Miller stated that when the noticing went out, it was an oversight on staff's part, that both lots being used by the project were not shaded. Apparently both assessor parcel numbers were not picked up for the notice. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if it was a legal issue, or if it was legally noticed. The public notice was mailed to all residents within 300 feet meeting State requirement, or beyond. It was mailed property. The question was that the map itself only depicted one pamel rather than three. Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that the map that the City provides was not required by State law. Staff included it so that people could get an idea as to where the property was located. Staff tries to be as accurate as possible. The address was on the notice, and the City does notify well beyond the State requirement. Assistant Attorney Moore was reviewing the notice and would report later in the meeting. PC Minutes -15- February 12, 1997 Elizabeth Ruiz Exum, 438 Montgomery St., CV 91911, said she did not receive a notice. She found out about the meeting from her mother, who lived across the street at 433 Montgomery St. She did not know if she would out of the radius of 300 feet. While gathering petitions, she found that a lot of their neighbors did not receive a notice. She felt an auto body and detailing business would be using hazardous chemicals. She felt the notice should have been more clear. All of the neighbors thought it was an auto body detailing business where they would be using the hazardous chemicals. They were concerned about the children and the elderly. It was largely a Hispanic coinmunity with limited English speakers. When they were collecting signatures, a lot of them could not understand because they could not read English. It was hard to understand, even for English-speaking people. She was opposed to this. She was not against businesses coming in. The area definitely needed beautifying. It was the nature of the business that they were concerned with. She felt an auto body business would attract sometimes the wrong type of customers. There was already MAACO which was an auto body shop, and there was another auto detailing body shop to the east side. She was concerned that Main Street would become a row of auto body shops. Assistant City Attorney Moore restated the question as to whether or not the fact that there was only one lot depicted on the map would cause a problem with the notice. She had reviewed the notice, and believed it should not. The address was clearly stated on the notice as 2952 Main Street, and those lots were identified at that address. Based upon that, she did not believe it would cause a problem. It was a slight irregularity, and she did not believe it would be a legal problem. Chair Tarantino asked if the reason Ms. Exum did not get a notice, and she lived across the street, was because she lived out of the 300' radius. Mr. Miller stated that all of the parcels on the south side of Montgomery, west of Fourth Avenue were noticed. They were within the 500' noticing area. It did not extend to the north side of Montgomery Street. Commissioner Tuchscher stated that it was important for the public to note that Chula Vista's 500' radius was well in excess of what every other city in the jurisdiction does and what the State requires, being 300'. He was uneasy about a map that slightly misrepresented the scope of the project area. He understood that legally is was okay. Steve Exum, 438 Montgomery St., CV 91911, said it seemed to him that the business was going to serve a lot more than just 300' within its area to the customers. In that regard, he thought it was a community issue, not necessarily a neighborhood issue. He thought the boundary of the mailing should be much larger. He lives 1-1/2 blocks from the proposed site. Currently, it was a very low key business with light traffic. He was concerned that the north side of Main Street had no sidewalk, had residents on both sides, with small children who play, and currently live with the problem that large semi trucks park in their driveways and alleys, and cruise up and down their street. Now a business was going in there that would be serving people going in and out of there all of the time. He was concerned about the safety of the children. They had gotten two notices. It was hard to tell if one was a duplicate of the other, and the second was possibly thrown out, and people did not know about the hearing, especially PC Minutes -16- February 12, 1997 when they did not speak English well and were probably limited in reading it. He thought it should have been a bilingual letter, especially when there were 70 people who lived on Zenith, Montgomery, and Fourth Street who were opposed to this business moving in. Mr. Exum turned the petition over to the Commission. Regarding the alley, everyone they talked to was under the impression the alley would be cut off, because of the terminology that there would be restricted access to the alley. In listening to the discussion, there would be an 18' wall built against the alley, directly across from an apartment complex where the children all play. It would block what little skylight they had from their courtyard, as well as create a mural of 18' for people to paint, tag, destroy, and to deface their community further. Presently, there was no wall, little traffic, and no problem with the existing business. They were concerned about the nature of the business, the traffic, the clientele it would pull in, and the inability of the City to comply with an ordinance that Mac trucks should not be parked there. They had been parked there for at least the last five years, and nothing had been done about it. Commissioner Tuchscher stated that 500' had been noticed. He wanted to make sure the public understood that it by no means limited the importance of their input, regardless of where they lived within the City. He thought all the public should feel free on all issues to comment. The Planning Commissioners took it very serious, regardless of the noticing. The noticing had to be limited because of the cost factors. Chair Tarantino was also disturbed that the language barrier was factoring people out from coming to the hearings. He offered to translate if anyone speaking a language other than English, particularly Spanish, would like to come in the future and address the Commission. He would translate for the Commission. Commissioner Tuchscher felt that if staff was not getting a response or not getting people to understand what was happening in their neighborhood because they could not interpret our letters, he was also concerned about that. Martha Garcia, 439 Zenith St., CV 91911, had previously written a letter to the Planning Commission which was included in their packet. She was concerned about the safety of the elderly and children. She was afraid the community would be like Logan Heights. They were trying to beautify the community. She was concerned about chemicals, fire hazards, increase in vandalism and tagging, and a decrease in the value of their property. Marian Costanzo, 501 Anita St. Sp. 162, CV 91911, lives next to MAACO. She lives in a mobilehome park with mostly elderly people. She said that 1/3 of her neighbors could not read English. The area to be developed was much bigger than they thought, and it had been her impression that the building would be more in the alley. They were concerned about the fumes, noise, paint, and polish. There were a lot of people in her mobilehome park who were not physically able to come to the meeting. Regarding the semis, there were trucks backing up from the area all morning with their back-up noise. She had signed a petition which had been circulated at the mobilehome park, which had not yet been submitted. PC Minutes -17- February 12, 1997 With the concurrence of the Chair, the applicant, Mrs. Beambila returned to the podium to state that she thought the people signed the petitions because they thought the alley was going to be closed. The Beambilas live in the neighborhood also, and did not want something there that would cause a problem. Mr. Quamada, the designer, added that the business was not oriented for public. Mr. Beambila bought cars, fixed them, and then sold them in another location. There would be a minimum amount of public coming in to get their car fixed. That was not the nature of his business. This was oriented to compact cars. They were not bringing trucks into the property. Everything would be accessed through Main Street. There would be no access through the alley, and it would not jeopardize anyone because of traffic. Chair Tarantino asked if they were putting anti-graffiti types of material into the construction of the 18' wall. Mr. Quamada replied that one of the requirements of the Design Review Committee was anti-graffiti paint at the alley. Chair Tarantino asked if the owners were prepared to deal with it as soon as it happened, and remove it, so it would not stay for a period of time. Mr. Quamada answered affirmatively. Since others had spoken again, the Chair allowed Ms. Costanzo to approach the podium. She said that she did not speak or read Spanish, but the person who brought the petition was bilingual. They could make anyone aware in at least English and Spanish of what they were signing. She could not believe someone would sign without explanation. Ms. Exum replied that they had explained the petition. They had to translate the letter. Everyone was under a completely different impression of this. She did not feel the applicants lived in the area. The design was great, but it was the type of business they were concerned with. She asked if they could guarantee that there would not be any hazardous materials that were highly combustible. What if a big fire started next door to where they lived? No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Replying to Commissioner Davis, Mr. Miller stated that because of the nuances of the Montgomery Specific Plan, some projects may not require special use permits. Commissioner Tuchscher asked why this item went to the Resource Conservation Commission, and why the special use permit. Mr. Miller said it went to the RCC because there was a Negative Declaration involved. Mr. Lee explained that the special use permit was required because it was a conditional use in the I-L zone. There were specific limitations in the Montgomery Specific Plan. He noted that if it was an allowed use in the I-L zone, the normal process would be to go through the environmental review process. If they received a Negative Declaration, they would proceed on to Design Review with the actual site plan and building elevations. This project is in a PC Minutes -18- February 12, 1997 redevelopment area, so it would go on to the Redevelopment Agency. In that case, it would not go forward to the Planning Conunission. The Design Review Committee would be acting as the recommending body for the item proceeding on to the Agency. In this case, a special use permit was required because of the nature of the business, and the reason it was before the Planning Commission. All the actions by the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission proceed on to the Redevelopment Agency for final action. Mr. Lee continued by giving an overview of the basic land uses allowable in an I-L zone. Mr. Lee concurred with the architect for the applicant that it was not an ideal situation to have limited industrial up against residential, separated by a narrow alley. This was in part a carryover from the County. Them had been no change to that particular land use. Mr. Miller added that in addition to the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance and Montgomery Specific Plan, there was also the Southwest Redevelopment Plan that was a primary document for this area. In consultation with the Community Development Department, it was felt that this item should go before the Redevelopment Agency, as well, and Mr. Miller noted that it was tentatively scheduled for their March 4 meeting. Mr. Lee noted, regarding safety, that the City requirements were that the applicant would be installing curb, gutter, sidewalk, and full street improvements in front of the subject project, but not necessarily the entire area. Mr. Miller informed the Commission that the land use matrix in the Zoning Ordinance listed auto body shops as a conditional use in the I-L zone. Since it was conditional and because there was so much involved, it was decided that it would be taken before the Planning Commission and then on to the Redevelopment Agency. Commissioner Willett stated that he felt paragraph two of the notice, regarding environmental review, should be written in layman language. At Commissioner Tuchscher's request, Mr. Lee commented that it was a legal requirement; staff had spent a lot of time evaluating the noticing procedure and what was in the notice. An attempt was made to make it as clear as possible, but some issues are fairly complex and certain information needs to be provided. The notices give the address of the planner and the phone number to call and the case number. The point person is identified. The date and place of the meeting is bolded, and a locator map is included. Mr. Lee stated that he had reviewed many notices throughout the County and he thought Chula Vista's was at the top of the list in terms of providing information. Staff would look at the language and discuss it with the Environmental Coordinator to see if some additional language might help in that particular area. Commissioner Tuchscher thought Planning staff was too educated and too close to it. Most people receiving the notices do not understand them. He thought the first sentence should be very simple like "A new building is proposed at ..." or "A new development is proposed in your neighborhood within 300 feet of your residence". Very simple. It should also say in the next sentence "A public hearing will be held on" and then the date. Then put in the legal language. PC Minutes -19- February 12, 1997 Commissioner Willett asked why there had not been a community briefing or workshop. He noted some conditions that had been put on other businesses, such as requiring use of compression of noise, firewalls, work to be done inside with doors closed. Commissioner Thomas asked if any of this was regulated by the Fire Department to deal with the solvents and waste. Chair Tarantino noted that it was regulated by the State, as well as locally. Mr. Miller stated that the Fire Department would do an inspection, and cans of spray paint, etc. would have to be stored in an appropriate place identified to the Fire Department. There probably would be aerosol solvents there, but not massive quantities of solvents for taking paint off cars. It was cheaper and quicker to remove a dented fender and replace it with a new one. The vehicle would be taken off site for painting. Chair Tarantino commented that many of the concerns addressed by the audience, such as altering air movement, the moisture and the temperature, climate in the immediate alley, the objectionable odors, the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard, were all outlined in the Negative Declaration and all of the responses to those issues raised were checked "no impact." He asked how it was determined that there would be no impact. Associate Planner Reid explained that when there was an area zoned limited industrial and had a number of similar auto uses on the site, and there was already a lot of traffic, etc., this use with a lot of the activity happening within an enclosed building and a noise buffer, would be found to not have an impact. Answering Chair Tarantino, Ms. Reid stated staff operated under guidelines set not only by the City of Chula Vista but also by the State of California and would have to be certified and validated by both agencies. It has to be in compliance with CEQA and is reviewed by the City Attorney's office and also by the Resource Conservation Commission. Commissioner Tuchscher stated that it was fair to say that staff took into account all the existing conditions, both on site and surrounding, and that no impact means no negative change from current conditions. Associate Planner Reid concurred. Commissioner Tuchscher believed that this project would add prosperity to the area and would probably spark additional new development, which he thought would eliminate some of the outdoor storage, truck traffic, etc., and hopefully would have a positive impact if it was approved. Regarding the configuration, he thought that backing it up to the alley with no access was a tremendous plus, because it would buffer traffic noise and business activity. He was concerned regarding the noticing. When the map shows a project which is 33 % the size of the actual project, he is uncomfortable. He suggested that staff accurately depict the project and that the notice be sent in Spanish. He asked staff if that was reasonable. Mr. Lee answered affirmatively. Commissioner Davis asked if the City had any policy on noticing in Spanish. Mr. Lee stated there was none. As a general rule, the notices were not sent in both English and Spanish. PC Minutes -20- February 12, 1997 Commissioner Tuchscher felt is was something that needed to be considered. MS (Davis/Tuchscher) to recommend approval of SUPS-96-02 for the special use permit at 2952 Main Street. Commissioner Davis stated that she knew it was very difficult when a residential zone abutted an I-L zone or industrial zone, and it was very difficult in that transition and the types of property for the types of businesses that can go in the property. She felt that staff had done a thorough job to show that there were not any negatives that could impact the community. She felt that placing the building on the back of the lot and restricting the access of the business to the alley is to the benefit of the residents. She hoped that would make it a good neighbor situation. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Ray excused) to approve. Mr. Lee noted that staff had the names and addresses of the people who had spoken but had not received notices. They would be added to the noticing that moves forward to the Agency. ITEM 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-96-24; NOTICING PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS - City Initiated Assistant Planning Director Lee stated that as staff reviewed this item with the Planning Director, other issues were identified which needed to be researched. Mr. Lee asked that this item be continued to the meeting of February 26, 1997. MSUC (Thomas/Davis) 5-0 to continue PCM-96-24 to February 26, 1997. ITEM 6. APPOINTMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE TO BEAUTIFICATION AWARDS COMMITTEE Mr. Lee noted that he had contacted Chair Tarantino and had asked him to consider appointing Commissioner Davis as representative to this Committee. He asked if the Planning Commission would like to endorse Commissioner Davis or if they had someone else they wished to nominate. The Commissioners heartily endorsed Commissioner Davis as representative. ITEM 7. UPDATE ON COUNCIL ITEMS Mr. Lee stated that ex-Commissioner Salas had brought to the Council's attention that beginning January 28 there had been a vacancy on the Planning Commission. She was pushing for the Council to make a decision. PC Minutes -21- February 12, 1997 Regarding the Rancho del Rey 6 project which was requesting a substantial transfer of units into the project, which left the Planning Commission on a 2-2 vote, staff had met with McMillin who had offered a slight reduction in the number of units to be transferred in the site from 58 to 52. It was a substantial improvement, and along with further requirements, staff had indicated to the Council that they could support an increase of as many of 46 units into the site and that would meet all of staff's objections. The Council had continued the item until the following Tuesday, indicating that they were in support of the McMillin proposal for the 52 units, subject to showing how the pedestrian system would work. They had asked for explanation and consideration for the Commission's actions, which was to look at additional access points to the park. The report from the Parks & Recreation Director and the Police Department still recommended that they maintain only a single point of access. The concerns were that more than one access provided a point of access for potential criminals leaving the park which make it difficult for policing the park. DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Mr. Lee reminded the Commissioners of the special meeting/workshop to be held February 19, which would be to consider four development agreements and to update the Commissioners on the major projects which were occurring in the City, with some discussion on the work program. There was a possibility of a special meeting on February 25 if closure was not made on the development agreements on the 19th. A report on MSCP would be presented at the March workshop and on the Otay Regional Park in April. Commissioners Tuchscher noted he had a conflict of interest involving the development agreements and could not vote. Commissioner Willett stated he would be out of town from February 18 through 25. There was a possibility that Commissioner Ray could not be in attendance. Mr. Lee stated that he would contact Mr. Ray. There was a question of having a quorum. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Tuchscher stated that the MSCP was in trouble. From a South County perspective, it was something all of the major landowners and the City had endorsed. He had contacted Supervisors Cox and Jacob to see if they would consider moving forward with the South Bay Subregional Plan and see if the federal agencies would look favOrably at taking that portion of the County. Commissioner Davis noted that PacBell was having problems putting their antennas up on the building sites. They had a permit for one on the Board of Realtors building and had installed it, then were told by City staff that they did not like the design and it had to be changed. Mr. Lee said PacBell had installed it before they had made application. They did not have a permit. Answering Commissioner Davis, Mr. Lee stated he would get back with her regarding PC Minutes -22- February 12, 1997 an antenna that was to be installed on the Bonita Athletic Club. Martin Miller was the contact person for those antennas. Commissioner Thomas stated that he would like to see cross streets identified for reference on the locator maps. It would be much better than having to go to a Thomas Brothers map to find the exact location. ADJOURNMENT at 10:45 p.m. to the Special Workshop Meeting of February 19, 1997 at 5:30 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2/3, and to the Regular Business Meeting of February 26, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. 'N~ncy Ripttey, Secrel~ary Planning Commission (m:\home\planning\nancy\pc97min\pc2-12. min)