Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_2002-09-03_MinutesCALL TO ORDER ORIGINAL I APPR°VEOD SEP 1 7 2002 CITY OF ATASCA®F PLANNING CITY OF ATASCAD PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 3, 2002 — 7:00 P.M. Chairman Bentz called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and Commissioner Eddings led the Pledge of Allegiance. R"T.T. CA Present: Commissioners Eddings, Jones, Kelley, O'Malley, Fonzi and Chairman Bentz Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director Warren Frace, Assistant Planner Glenn Rider, Planning Services Manager Steve McHarris and Recording Secretary Grace Pucci. PUBLIC COMMENT Joan O'Keefe, 9985 Old Morro Road East, read from a prepared statement expressing her concern about a large white oak tree in the middle of a planned development on Santa Ysabel. (Attachment A) Chairman Bentz asked Community Development Director Frace for his comments on Mrs. O'Keefe's concerns. Director Frace stated that he has had a number of conversations with Mrs. O'Keefe regarding the issue. Mr. Frace indicated that he has been out on the site and has been working with the property owner to ensure that everything is in compliance. There will be a further assessment of the site this week and staff will provide a report at the next Planning Commission meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON AUGUST 20 2002. City of Atascadero Planning Comm.. on Minutes Regular Meeting September 3, 2002 Page 2 of 5 MOTION: By Commissioner Jones and seconded by Vice Chairman Fonzi to approve the Consent Calendar. AYES: Commissioners Jones, Fonzi, O'Malley, Kelley, Eddings and Chairman Bentz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Motion passed 6:0 by a roll -call vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. TO BE CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 ZCH 2002-0029 / CUP 2002-0067 / VESTING TTM 2002-0014 Applicant: Kelly Gearhart, 6205 Alcantara, Atascadero, CA 93422 Project Title: ZCH 2002-0029 / CUP 2002-0067 / Vesting TTM 2002-0014 Project 2000 Ferrocarril Road (East of Union Pacific Railroad), Atascadero, San Location: Luis Obispo County APN 049-023-030, 049-291-016, 049-291-005 Project The proposed project consists of Planned Development Zone Change with a Master Plan of Description: Development to allow a 16 lot single family residential subdivision with an average minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. One of the lots will be a 5.76 -acre open space lot with an equestrian/pedestrian trail and parking area. The project will permit the construction of 13 additional single family dwellings. The site has rolling topography and large flat areas with numerous oak trees and native vegetation. The site is located between the Salinas River and the Union Pacific Railroad. Access will be provided from a street extension off of El Camino Real that will require construction of a grade separated railroad crossing. No water or sewer services are available to the site, and the site will be served by individual wells and septic systems. The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation and requires a Planned Development Overlay for zoning consistency. General Plan Designation: SE (Suburban Estates) Zoning District: RS (Residential Suburban) Proposed PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2002-0030: Environmental Based on the findings of the initial study, the Community Development Department Determination recommends that the Planning Commission find that no significant harm would come to the environment from approval of this project. The proposed Negative Declaration is available for public review at 6500 Palma Avenue, Community Development Department, Room 104, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 .m., Monday through Friday 3. AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-0062 Applicant: AT&T Wireless Services Project Title: Conditional Use Permit 2002-0062 Project Location: 6490 El Camino Real, Atascadero, CA APN 030-191-017 Project Replacement of an existing 63' high monopole with a 63' high co -located stealth City of Atascadero Planning Commib�ion Minutes Regular Meeting September 3, 2002 Page 3 of 5 Description: monopole. The existing Nextel panel antennas will be reattached to the new monopole and four (4) new AT&T Wireless panel antennas will be attached at mid -height. The project will also add four (4) small equipment cabinets, and associated antenna equipment. The monopole will be brown -textured to simulate pine bark with attached pine -green colored antennas with a series of fabricated pine branches to simulate a mature pine tree. General Plan Designation: Downtown Commercial. Zoning District: Downtown Commercial. Proposed The project is categorically exempt under CEQA Section 15301, Class 1 Existing Environmental Facilities — Operation and minor alteration of an existing telecommunication facility as Determination a negligible expansion of use beyond that currently exists. Staff Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution 2002-0044, approving Conditional Use Recommends: Permit 2002-0062 a request to replace an existing monopole with a new stealth monopole telecommunication facility on APN 030-191-017, subject to findings and conditions. Planning Services Manager Steve McHarris provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT - None MOTION: By Commissioner Eddings and seconded by Commissioner O'Malley to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-0044, approving Conditional Use Permit 2002-0062 a request to replace an existing monopole with a new stealth monopole telecommunication facility on Assessors Parcel Number 030-191-017, as conditioned. AYES: Commissioners Eddings, O'Malley, Jones, Kelley, Fonzi and Chairman Bentz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Motion passed 6: 0 by a roll -call vote. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORTS 4. TIME EXTENSION REQUEST CUP 99-008:1690 EL CAMINO REAL A one-year time extension request for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 98-008, allowing the phased construction of a 17,700 square -foot machinery manufacturing building complex at 1690 El Camino Real. The site has a general plan designation of Commercial Park (CPK) and a Zoning District of CPK. City of Atascadero Planning Commit—on Minutes Regular Meeting September 3, 2002 Page 4 of 5 Staff Recommends: The Planning Commission adopt Resolution PC 2002-0046 approving a one-year time extension for Conditional Use Permit 98-008 allowing the construction of a 17,700 square foot machinery manufacturing building complex specified within the project conditions and exhibits. Assistant Planner Glenn Rider provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission. Commissioner Eddings felt that since the approval of this project the Commission has been requesting more architectural features for buildings along the 101 and 41 corridors. For this reason the item should be continued and perhaps conditioned with enhanced elevations particularly along the Highway 101 side. Commissioner Jones indicated that he agreed with Commissioner Eddings. Vice Chairman Fonzi also agreed with continuing the item and in addition would like to see some easily understandable plans on landscaping, elevations and any proposed revisions. Commissioner Kelley recommended that windows be suggested to the applicant for the portion of the building with an exposure to Highway 101. MOTION: By Commissioner O'Malley and seconded by Vice Chairman Fonzi to continue this item to the next meeting of the Planning Commission. AYES: Commissioners O'Malley, Fonzi, Eddings, Kelley, Jones and Chairman Bentz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Motion passed 6:0 by a roll -call vote. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS & REPORTS Commissioner O'Malley apologized to the Commission for any embarrassment he may have caused over the red tagging of the property adjoining his residence. He felt he was perhaps over zealous with the landscaping and intends to submit a site plan showing any movement of dirt in the last ten years and he has pulled a permit for the site. Vice Chairman Fonzi referred to the issue of the oak tree on Santa Ysabel. She stated she goes by the site every day and has seen them cut off the limb and doing an extensive pruning that she did not remember in the arborist's plan. Additionally, they are parking their equipment under the tree, which is the chief asset of that site. She requested staff visit the spot and handle any complaints that arise. Vice Chairman Fonzi also asked about the state legislation dealing with guesthouses and its impact on Atascadero's guesthouse issue. Mr. Frace indicated that this was City of Atascadero Planning Commib..un Minutes Regular Meeting September 3, 2002 Page 5 of 5 Assembly Bill 1866, and staff is researching the bill, which had just passed over the weekend. It deals with second units and it appears that the state may have preempted the city's ability to regulate or restrict these. Staff will bring a report on this item to the Commission. Vice Chairman Fonzi then asked if reports effecting Commission decisions could be received sooner, and if a report on an item could not be included in their packet to have that item automatically continued. Mr. Frace stated that it was staff's intent to ensure that the packets are complete when distributed and they do not intend to allow late reports to create problems in the future. Commissioner Kelley referred to state -mandated housing and asked if there has been a change in Atascadero's number. Mr. Frace stated that he has not seen a number from SLOCOG and went on to explain how the SLOGOC formula for housing works. Commissioner O'Malley agreed with Vice Chairman Fonzi's comments regarding receipt of reports and would like to see items continued if there is not adequate time for review. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Bentz adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting on September 17, 2002. MEETING RECORDED AND MINUTES PREPARED BY: Grace Pucci, Recording Secretary Attachment A — Joan O'Keefe, 9985 Old Morro Road East Cdvlpmnt/PC Minutes 02/PC Minutes 09-03-02.doc Attach, ..ant # PC Minutes of -3•p � Joan O'Keefe 9985 Old Morro Rd E 9-3-02 Planning Commissioners On April 2nd you approved a planned development on Santa Ysabel. There is a very large beautiful white oak tree in the middle of the project. There is a 2nd large tree near the back property line that I can't assess. When staff prepared their report there was no arborists evaluation and as usual I questioned the lack of a report considering the location and size of the tree. The day of the hearing the arborist's report was delivered and subsequently handed out at the meeting. I was very fortunate in that I was able to get Jim Patterson, a graduate of Cal Poly with a degree in natural resources and a certified arborist to come to the planning commission meeting. I'm citing his credentials because you put considerable weight on them. I knew his comments would carry more weight than mine. As I read the report I knew it was a boiler plate job that had been quickly put together. It would be essentially useless in the field and the picture with the paver's was a computer generated drawing that had little basis in reality. Because I lack the credentials my comments were glossed over by most of you. To refresh your memories about the report Steve Alvarez, the arboris said there should be no disturbance of soil within the drip line, protective fencing should be installed at the drip line and left in place until the pavers were installed, no heavy equipment driven under the tree; ground surface should not be cut, filled or compacted and any foundations, pipe lines or soil disturbance should be approved by an arborist. Very clear. Yes. Very practical? No, but you and staff accepted it. xr J�� This white oak has a 60" diameter and an 80 foot diameter canopy. It is a specimen tree. Let me describe the construction site. The tree fencing which encircles 3 sides of the tree encompasses about 25% of the drip line so most of the root zone is not protected. Heavy equipment is moving back and forth under the drip line to get to the back of the site. A trench line to connect utilities was dug by machinery within the drip line. The dirt was piled next to the trench line. One big limb has been removed and possibly another. The area where the cut was made appeared healthy. I haven't been able to get an answer to my question about why the limb was removed. Most of the unprotected drip line has had some soil disturbance. Most of the feeder roots for a tree are in the top six inches of the soil. So basically there is 100% NON-COMPLIANCE with the arborist's report &D 200/-i1z7 OIF 2001-004 � 77-M 20D /— d 0 /0 5A I reported my observations to city star on August 23rd about 4:00 pm_ The first question I asked was who approved the permit when clearly the tree protection did not come close to what the arborist had required. No one seems to know who signed off and I find that hard to believe. If someone made a mistake they should know about it so it is not repeated. Kelly Gearhardt was in the office at the same time I was there and his comment with regard to the trenching was we had to get to the utility hookup. If there has to be encroachment into the drip line than that should have been addressed in the tree protection plan and mitigation measures recommended to minimize damage. An adequte tree protection plan would take construction activity within the drip into consideration. I was told a follow up arborists report would be forthcoming and when it came in it too was woefully inadequate. This report says there shouldn't have been trenching in the root zone, but they filled it in and everything is okay. There was no comment about the fact that the fencing only protects 25% of the root zone and doesn't encompass the tree. Warren finally viewed the site with Kelly and he said the fencing will be expanded but it will not encircle the drip line. No stop work order was ever issued. I viewed the site today and I really can't significant improvements. There is some additional orange fencing on the south side draped over poles. Staff dropped the ball by accepting this report without expressing concerns about its completeness to you and you dropped the ball by not questioning staff and by not listening to my concerns. Staff dropped the ball a 2nd time when the permit was approved without tree protection in place as recommended by the arborist and this may be why no stop work order was issued. Kelly is a business man and all he is interested in is moving the project along, paying his investors and pocketing his profits. As far as I'm concerned the buck stops with you and city staff. You are accomplices and enablers when you approve projects when information is submitted at the last minute and it is incomplete or inadequate.