Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 01-07-03CITY OF ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting January 7, 2003 — 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Bentz called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and Commissioner Porter led the Pledge of Allegiance. unr.r. CATs, Present: Commissioners Eddings, Jones, Kelley, Porter and Chairman Bentz Absent: Vice Chairman Fonzi Staff: Community Development Director Warren Frace, City Engineer Steve Kahn, Associate Planner Glenn Rider, Planning Services Manager Steve McHarris, Assistant Planner Kelly Davis, City Attorney Roy Hanley and Recording Secretary Grace Pucci. PUBLIC COMMENT None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON DECEMBER 17, 2002. 2. ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL MAP 2002-0046 FOR TPM 2002-0029: 3650 TRAFFIC WAY-SKIBO MOTION: By Commissioner Kelley and seconded by Commissioner Jones to approve the Consent Calendar. AYES: Commissioner Kelley, Jones, Eddings, Porter and Chairman Bentz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Motion passed 5:0 by a roll -call vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. CUP 2002-0083: RESIDENTIAL HEIGHT EXCEPTION Applicant: Steve and Mikelee Pesenti, 9075 Mountain View Drive, Atascadero, CA 93422 Project Title: Conditional Use Permit 2002-0083: Residential height exception Project 9075 Mountain View Drive, Atascadero, CA 93422 Location: (San Luis Obispo County) APN 056-311-002 Project A proposal for Conditional Use Permit (CUP 2002-0083) to grant a height Description: exception for a single-family residence in the RSF-Y zone. The home is proposed to be a maximum of 40.5 feet in height from natural grade, with a height average of 37.5 feet. General Plan Designation: Single Family Residential - Y Zoning District: Residential Single Family - Y Assistant Planner Kelly Davis provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT Steve Pesenti, applicant, stated he had spoken with his neighbors and had heard no objection to the proposed height of his residence. Mr. Pesenti answered questions of the Commission. Chairman Bentz closed the Public Comment period. Commissioner Kelley indicated that he would be in favor of an additional condition to require an engineer certify the height of the house at completion of the framing stage. Commissioner Eddings stated that though the design is pleasing, this lot does not have the type of site constraints that would make this type of use permit necessary, and he did not personally want to set a precedence of allowing taller houses on easy -build lots. Jack Hanauer, applicant's contractor, discussed the height of the house and topography of the site. Mr. Hanauer answered questions of the Commission. MOTION: By Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Porter to adopt Resolution No. PC 2003-0001 approving a Conditional Use Permit to grant a height exception for a single-family residence in the Residential Single Family zoning district located at 9075 Mountain View Drive with the additional condition that at the discretion of the Building Department an engineer can certify the height of the building. AYES: Commissioners Jones, Porter, Kelley and Chairman Bentz NOES: Commissioner Eddings ABSTAIN: None Motion passed 4:1 by a roll -call vote. 4. CUP 2002-0055 CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE TO A COMBINED RESIDENCE AND BED AND BREAKFAST FACILITY. Applicant: Tom and Nancy Cadwell, 7129 San Gregorio Rd., Atascadero, CA 93422 Project Title: Conditional Use Permit 2002-0055: Conversion of an existing single-family residence to a combined residence and Bed and Breakfast facility. Project 7129 San Gregorio Rd., Atascadero, CA 93422 Location: (San Luis Obispo County) APN 049-183-011,010 Project A proposal for Condition Use Permit (CUP 2002-0055) to establish a bed Description: and breakfast on an existing 4.5 -acre single-family residential lot. The proposed project will not require any new construction above what is necessary per building code standards to permit the existing residence to be used as a Bed and Breakfast. The house is currently 6,174 square -feet. The project proposes the use of 5 existing bedrooms as sleeping quarters, for both the permanent residents and transient guests. General Plan Designation: Rural Estates Zoning District: Residential Suburban Assistant Planner Kelly Davis provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT Tom Cadwell, 7129 San Gregorio Road, applicant, gave a brief history of the property, described the site and its suitability for a Bed and Breakfast. Mr. Cadwell stated he had spoken with his neighbors and felt he had taken measures to mitigate their concerns. He asked the Commission to reexamine Condition of Approval No. 5 and change the width of the lane from 20 feet to 18 feet. Judy Wright, 7115 San Gregorio Road, stated that she lives adjacent to the property and is opposed to this project. Her concerns include issues of privacy, cooking by guests, increase in traffic on the driveway and safety of the road. Joanne Main, 8940 San Gabriel Road, felt this was a good proposal and would have a positive effect on tourism and the local economy. Joe Elkins, 370 Wilhoit, Templeton, applicant's architect, discussed the driveway and requested a change in the condition requiring it be widened to 20 feet. He also felt that striping the driveway was not consistent with the aesthetics of the area. Art Appleby, 7125 San Gregorio Road, shares the driveway with the applicant and felt it was very dangerous. He felt the character of the neighborhood would change with this business and urged the Commission to deny the application. Mary Maloney, realtor representing the property, explained the contract she had with the Cadwells and stated her support for the Bed and Breakfast. Robin Phemister, 7109 San Gregorio Road, read from a petition signed by neighbors surrounding the proposed project urging the Commission to oppose the Conditional Use Permit. (Exhibit A) Elena Martino Wishman, 7005 San Gregorio Road, stated that her backyard abuts the back of the Cadwell's property and expressed concern with increased traffic, strangers in the neighborhood and trash problems. She is opposed to the project. Russ Wright, 7115 San Gregorio Road, was troubled by the application for the Bed and Breakfast as well as the CUP process. He expressed concerns regarding parking, lights from guest's cars and driveway safety. Mr. Wright submitted pictures to illustrate his concerns as well as a list of recommended conditions (Exhibit B), and asked the Commission to deny the application. Chairmen Bentz closed the Public Comment period. Commissioner Eddings stated that he does not support the application for the following reasons: 1) this is not a public area and therefore an inappropriate location for a Bed and Breakfast, and 2) he is unable to make Findings No. 3, 4 or 5. Commissioner Jones felt that this use was not appropriate for the neighborhood and its rural atmosphere. He was concerned with the number of guests, the accompanying noise and its impact on the neighbors. Commissioner Kelley indicated that it was important to protect the neighborhood especially given the overwhelming negative comments of the neighbors. He expressed concern with the loft and the safety of the driveway. Commissioner Porter agreed with the opinions expressed by the other Commissioners. He supports tourism, but felt this was not the appropriate location for a Bed and Breakfast, especially because of the impact to the neighborhood. MOTION: By Commissioner Eddings and seconded by Commissioner Jones to deny the application because Findings No. 3 and 4 cannot be met. AYES: Commissioners Eddings, Jones, Porter, Kelley and Chairman Bentz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Motion passed 5:0 by a roll -call vote. 5. ZCH 2002-0037: CODE TEXT AMENDMENT OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT #11 3F MEADOWS FIRE PROTECTION STANDARDS WASTLEROCK DEVELOPMENT) Applicant: Castlerock Development, a CH Corporation, 202 H3 Tank Farm Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Project Title: Zone Change 2002-0037: Code Text Amendment of Planned Development #11 (317 Meadows Fire Protection Standards Project Oak Ridge Estates at 3F Meadows Location: 812 acres located west of the end of San Marcos Road (San Luis Obispo County) Project The project consists of a proposed text amendment to PD -11 (Section 9 - Description: 3.656(b) Fire Department Conditions of Approval. The proposed amendments would clarify the fire protection standards during construction phasing for model homes. The proposed draft text is available for review at the Planning Department. General Plan Designation: Rural Estates Zoning District: Residential Suburban/ PD -11 Commissioner Kelley announced that he would step down from consideration of Items No. 5 and 6. Community Development Director Warren Frace provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT Don Ritter, 8895 Pino Solo, representing the applicant, expressed appreciation for staff's efforts and stated their support for the text amendment. Geraldine Brasier, asked for clarification on who would be paying for the water tank. Commissioner Jones explained that the water tank would be paid for by the Atascadero Mutual Water Company from fees assessed on new development. Harvey Marshall, 100820 San Marcos Road, asked about the location of the water tank. Commissioner Jones stated that the water tank would be located on a lot designed specifically for it and would not be visible from any part of the City or Highway 41. Chairman Bentz closed the Public Comment period. MOTION: By Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Eddings to adopt Resolution PC 2003-0009 recommending the City Council approve Zone Change 2002-0037 as a Code Text Amendment to Planned Development No. 11. AYES: Commissioners Jones, Eddings, Porter and Chairman Bentz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Motion passed 4:0 by a roll -call vote. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORTS 6. 3-F MEADOWS / PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ll MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT DETERMINATION (CASTLEROCK DEVELOPMENT) Applicant: Castlerock Development, a CH Corporation, 202 H3 Tank Farm Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Project Title: 3-F Meadows / Planned Development 11 Master Plan of Development Determination Project Oak Ridge Estates at 3F Meadows Location: 812 acres located west of the end of San Marcos Road (San Luis Obispo County) Project Planned Development 11 (317 Meadows) requires a Master Plan of Description: Development to be approved for the entire project site prior to recordation of the final map. Due to an incomplete record of previous project approval and actions on the project, staff is unable to make a determination of the Master Plan of Development consistency. The Planning Commission will forward its recommendation to City Council for consideration with the final map. General Plan Designation: Rural Estates Zoning District: Residential Suburban/ PD -11 Community Development Director Warren Frace provided the staff report and with City Attorney Roy Hanley answered questions of the Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT Dean Coker, Senor Planner for Castlerock Development, gave the Commission a brief background on Castlerock Development and made a formal presentation on the project. It is his position that the project is done and has been for quite a while, and that it is the plan that evolved from the EIR and Appendix B. Mr. Coker spoke about staff turnover within the Planning Department and felt Castlerock had a reasonable right to expect that work done by prior staff members was done well and could be relied upon. Mr. Coker answered questions of the Commission. Dennis Law, applicant's attorney, gave a history of the project, what has taken place to date and the legal significance of it. He spoke of the difference between discretionary and ministerial decisions, stating that lot line adjustments were ministerial decisions and therefore not subject to CEQA review. Mr. Law stated the Planning Staff is requesting the Commission to go back and re -compare the Master Development Plan before the Commission to the EIR, in essence asking for another environmental review, which he feels is not appropriate. He asked the Commission to provide the Community Development Director with a recommendation to approve the current proposed Master Development Plan. Mr. Law answered questions of the Commission. Dean Coker added to Mr. Law's comments by advising the Commission that the plan that existed in the files at the time in 2000 is the plan that they have submitted in substantial compliance, but they did agree to change two cul-de-sacs into driveways on the recommendation of the City. Paul Riekart, engineer with EDA, stated he had been with the project for the duration. He spoke about the 2000 approval of the lot line adjustment and today's document. Mr. Riekart indicated that the Master Plan of Development as presented today is substantially the same as it was when submitted for review by staff and Planning Commission during the process to reinstate the lot line adjustment in December 2000 with the exception of minor additions, deletions and modifications requested by current city staff. David Foot, member of the Firma landscape architectural firm that was the author of the EIR prepared in 1995, spoke about working with Steve DeCamp and Gary Kaiser, city staff at the time. He had strongly recommended that the EIR go beyond what many EIR's do in developing the mitigation measures to include what finally became Appendix B. What this did was take the applicant's proposed 40 scale plans and annotate them to reflect the text and table mitigations that were contained in the EIR as a graphic tool to communicate what was the nature of the things they recommended be changed to mitigate impacts. That analysis was not a detailed engineering level analysis, but simply intended to do things like recommend walls to eliminate sliver fills, and was not a detailed redesign. Mr. Foot would not expect the project to be a replica of Appendix B and in his view the approved project is the original project with mitigations and Appendix B was a guidebook to get them there. Joan O'Keefe, 9985 Old Morro Road East, made several comments about the project: 1) while the applicant feels the Master Plan is consistent with the EIR, Director Frace is saying that he cannot make that determination because there isn't any real information there and though he has asked for that information it is not forthcoming, 2) she disagrees with the applicant's comments that what they are doing tonight is similar to what was done in 2000 because in 2000 it was just a technical procedural action and ministerial, however, as a courtesy the Planning Department wanted to make it public so that new neighbors would know what was going on, 3) She questioned why Castlerock would not make the information needed available to staff, 4) requested clarification from the City Attorney on the issue of whether the project was "dead" at any time, and 5) she questioned if when they took action in 2000 this a new project. Mrs. O'Keefe urged the Commission and Castlerock Development to follow the staff recommendation. Ellen Beraud, 9608 Laurel Road, stated that areas of importance for her were: 1) whether this was a new project, 2) concern with the age of the EIR as many new issues have come up since it was done, 3) standards of development are old and she is not convinced they address newer issues such as public access, wildlife corridors, trails, etc. She feels the project needs more work. Chairman Bentz brought the meeting back to the Commission but did not close the Public Comment period as he expected further questions for staff and the public. Commissioner Jones felt that the Commission had adopted the EIR and CEQA rules allow the applicant to move forward to do what he needs to do without having continual review. However, he understands that staff wants instructions from the Commission that the Master Plan of Development is something that comports with the EIR. City Attorney Roy Hanley explained that the project that went before the Commission in 2000 was not the Master Plan of Development. In 1995 there was a project approved that included various incremental steps, and the applicant at that time came back in because they had let one aspect of the project, the boundary map, lapse. Therefore the Boundary Map only went back before the Commission in 2000 for a recommendation, not the Master Plan of Development. A set of plans that could become the Master Plan of Development was submitted for review by staff, but staff never approved them. Mr. Hanley stated that the record would show that the Planning Commission did not make an environmental determination on the 40 Scales, but rather the Commission just reviewed, and was only told about the boundary map. Chairman Bentz inquired if there was a reason why a Master Plan of Development had never been approved. Mr. Hanley responded that there is not a Master Plan of Development, which the Community Development Director can sign that is in compliance with the mitigation measures contained in the EIR. Dean Coker felt it was not entirely correct to say that the Master Plan of Development they submitted in November was not reviewed as part of the 2000 review. 14 pages of additional changes were made to the Master Plan of Development and many of those changes involved building movements and other changes. Paul Reikart made the point that there was a significant amount of review with Planning staff prior to 2000, and there were 13 sheets of the plan set that were added in direct response to Planning staffs review of the development plan at that time. Dennis Law added that he had a letter dated November 8, 2000 from planning consultants to Assistant City Planner Jamie Heltsley, exclusively discussing lot configurations for lots that exceeded 30% in slope and whether or not the then draft Master Development Plan was in conformance with the criteria for building envelopes, leach field areas and driveways for lots. Therefore, based on the discussions in December 2000 regarding these issues, which are part of the project under CEQA, the Commission found that the project was in substantial conformance with the prior EIR. Chairman Bentz asked if the Commission could see the letter from Assistant Planner Heltsley. The Commission reviewed the letter. Chairman Bentz closed the Public Comment period. Chairman Bentz read a portion of the letter to Assistant Planner Heltsley into the record: "On this basis the engineers for the project have been working on revisions to the 14 specific lots and questions to address the slope, leach field, habitat easements and other development restriction issues as a means to demonstrate the building sites and septic areas to be employed on each of these unique parcels. This work would generally have been left for building permit stages as was originally conceived, but to aid you in understanding the final configuration of the parcels we are enclosing site-specific details for each of these lots. These materials should be considered a part of the Master Plan Development as referenced earlier." Director Frace explained that this letter was correspondence between then Assistant Planner Heltsley and the applicant when Paul Saldana was director of the department. It is true that this happened during the period of time when the lot line adjustment was being reviewed in 2000 and they did make changes to the Master Plan. It is not staffs position that they haven't worked on it and they haven't made progress in terms of addressing some of the EIR issues, it just never was completed. Mr. Hanley stated that the applicant presented a Master Plan of Development that was not approved by staff, and was therefore not part of the environmental determinations made in the year 2000. Chairman Bentz recessed the hearing at 9:45 p.m. Chairman Bentz called the meeting back to order at 9:50 p.m. Chairman Bentz reopened the Public Comment period. Chairman Bentz asked Mr. Coker why the applicant has not given the City the information Mr. Frace has requested. Dean Coker stated they are not holding back any material; it has all been done and exists in the plans and was all prepared for and worked on in conjunction with Steve DeCamp, Gary Kaiser and Paul Saldana. Chairman Bentz closed the Public Comment period. Commissioner Jones stated that he understands both sides of the issue, however, the project has been around for a long time, been reviewed and it is time to move the project forward. MOTION: By Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Porter that the Planning Commission move that the resolution recommending the Master Plan of Development for PD -11, the 3-F Meadows project, is consistent with the project EIR and mitigation monitoring program and resolving that the Planning Commission using the whereases applied here, the Master Plan of Development as shown in Exhibit A and dated 11/14/02 is consistent with PD -11 and the project EIR. AYES: Commissioners Jones, Porter, Eddings and Chairman Bentz NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Kelley Motion passed 4:0 by a roll -call vote. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS & REPORTS None ADJOURNMENT Chairman Bentz adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on January 21, 2003. MEETING RECORDED AND MINUTES PREPARED BY: Grace Pucci, Recording Secretary The following exhibits are available for review in the Community Development Department. Exhibit A — Robin Phemister, neighborhood petition Exhibit B — Russ Wright, photographs and additional conditions Exhibit C — PPT Presentation by Dean Coker, Castlerock Development \\Cityhall\CDvlpmnt\— PC Minutes\PC Minutes 03\PC Minutes 01.07.03.gp.doc