Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 02-21-06CALL TO ORDER CITY OF ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 21, 2006 — 7:00 P.M. Chairperson Beraud called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and Vice Chairperson O'Keefe led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner Fonzi, Jones, Kelley, Porter, Slane, O'Keefe and Chairperson Beraud Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director Warren Frace, Public Works Director/City Engineer Steve Kahn, Deputy Community Development Director Steve McHarris, Associate Planner Kelly Gleason, Associate Planner Kerry Margason, and Recording Secretary Grace Pucci. PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: By Vice Chairperson O'Keefe and seconded by Commissioner Jones to approve the agenda. Motion passed 7:0 by a roll -call vote. DISCLOSURE OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS: Commissioner Jones stated he had received an email from the applicant under Item #3 to which he did not respond. PC Minutes 02/21/06 Page 1 of 11 PUBLIC COMMENT Jim Cory expressed concern about the work Union Pacific Railroad is doing at Capistrano and Highway 41 for the purpose of allowing a local lumber company to utilize the site for deliveries. Community Development Director Warren Frace stated that staff is working on the issue and has been in contact with Union Pacific and the City Attorney is looking into what options the City has in regard to truck traffic as it leaves or enters the site. Chairperson Beraud closed the Public Comment period. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON FEBRUARY 7, 2006. 2. ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL MAP 2005-0125: 8585 SAN RAFAEL ROAD (TPM -2005-0069) Commissioner Fonzi requested a change to page six of the Minutes of February 7, 2006, fourth paragraph from the bottom, Commissioner Shane changed to Commissioner Slane. MOTION: By Vice Chairperson O'Keefe and seconded by Commissioner Fonzi to approve Item #1 as amended and Item #2. Motion passed 7:0 by a roll -call vote. (Porter abstained on Item # 1) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORTS PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. VARIANCE 2005-0009, CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF 2-7-06 Applicant: Eric Roy, 9186 Palomar Ave., Atascadero, CA 93422 Project Title: Variance 2005-0009 Project 9186 Palomar Ave., Atascadero, CA 93422, APN 029-201-026 Location: Project A variance request to allow a front yard fence to be five (5') to six (6') feet in height. Fencing within the Description: front setback is currently limited to three (3) feet in height. General Plan Designation: SFR -Y Zoning District: RSF-Y Proposed CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The project qualifies for a Class 5 Categorically Exemption under the PC Minutes 02/21/06 Page 2 of 11 Environmental provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA section 15305. Minor Alterations in Land Determination Use Limitations. Deputy Community Development Director Steve McHarris presented the staff report and answered questions of the Commission emphasizing that findings could not be made for the front yard fence as the subject property location and relationship to the street, and its front windows, are not unique to Atascadero. Commissioner Kelly began discussion regarding the fence being within the City's right- of-way based on a measurement from a registered survey monument within Palomar Avenue directly in front of the subject property. He also noted that the applicant's site plan dimensions were incorrect based on the survey monument. There was Commission discussion regarding the fence being constructed outside of the owner's property and within the City's right-of-way. PUBLIC COMMENT Eric & Katherine Roy, applicants, addressed staff comments with the use of a PowerPoint presentation. Chairperson Beraud closed the Public Comment period. Chairperson Beraud questioned what action the Commission should take if it is determined that the fence is in the City's right-of-way. Public works Director Steve Kahn stated he had looked at the site and until the survey monument's cap is pulled off and the surveyor has determined where the property line is located he would not want to speculate on whether or not the applicant's property is in the right-of-way. Commissioner Fonzi expressed concern that staff accepted the fee from the applicant then encouraged them to proceed with the Variance. Deputy Community Development Director McHarris explained that staff had informed the applicant that this could not be approved as a Variance application and encouraged them not to proceed. He stated staff tries to avoid taking such applications when they are not applicable, but the applicant felt strongly about presenting his issues to the Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT Eric stated that if his fence is in the right-of-way so are his neighbor's fences. He made the following points: • He should file for a Variance; • His street facing yard is designed as a side yard not a front yard; • The slope of the street is unique; PC Minutes 02/21/06 Page 3 of 11 • The French doors on his home are unique; • His home is a non -conforming use; • He has a right to continue his non -conforming use; • The code allows adjustments to fence locations; • The code applies to new land uses, not his home; and • The code provides exception standards for fences. Eric Roy stated that code enforcement officer Tom Peterson told him the violation complaint did not come from anyone that lives on his street or within his neighborhood, and he did not insist staff take their money, and that he would not have paid the fee had he been told the Variance application could not be approved. Chairperson Beraud closed the Public Comment period. MOTION: By Vice Chairperson O'Keefe and seconded by Commissioner Kelley to adopt Resolution PC 2006-0013 denying Variance 2005-0009 based on findings. Motion failed 3:3 by a roll -call vote. (Jones abstained due to right-of-way uncertainty, Slane, Porter, Fonzi opposed) Commissioner O'Keefe asked staff if the applicant's statements were applicable or taken out of context. Deputy Community Development Director Steve McHarris responded point by point that the cited code sections did not apply to the variance request. Commissioner O'Keefe asked staff to comment on the applicant's contention that the area with the fence was not their front yard, but rather their side yard. Deputy Community Development Director McHarris stated that the applicant is commenting to the design of the home, however, staff's interpretation of the code is that the area with the fence is the front yard. Mr. McHarris explained why the city does not have side yards facing the street. Commissioner O'Keefe asked staff if there were similar violation complaints received on the neighborhood. Deputy Community Development Director Steve McHarris stated that the same violation was being processed for a property two doors down from the applicant. Commissioner Fonzi asked for further clarification of the designations of front yard and side yard. Community Development Director Warren Frace explained that the definition of front yard and side yard has nothing to do with how the house is built or the location of the PC Minutes 02/21/06 Page 4 of 11 front door. It has to do with how the lot relates to the street. He stated in this case the only side of the lot that faces the street is the side with the fence, and by definition that is the front yard. Commissioner Kelly stated that alternatives to a six-foot fence did exist and he does not know how to accept a fence constructed within the City's right-of-way. Chairperson Beraud asked staff if the commission can ignore a fence in the right-of-way or are they obligated to address this. Public Works Director Steve Kahn state that he would not speculate on the fence location until a survey is performed. Commissioner Jones stated for the record that though he had originally supported the continuance and would be likely to support the fence, the issue of the right-of-way troubles him. Commissioner Fonzi stated she had voted no because as a governing body the Commission's responsibility is not just enforcement, but to also adjudicate and judge issues fairly, and she thinks the applicant acted in good faith. Commissioner Porter stated his agreement with Commission Fonzi and that what is important is that the fence is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood where there are other fences; none of the neighbors filed the complaint; and that the applicant wants the fence that they already built. Vice Chairperson O'Keefe expressed concern that if the Commission grants a Variance on this, why not approve other six foot fences that may come in? She indicated that Variances must not be based on the applicant's personality, and that there must be a reason related to the property to be granted, and that there are a number of simple solutions to solve this problem other than the fence. MOTION: By Commissioner Kelley to accept Variance 2005-0009. Commission Fonzi asks, "Do we have to make Findings?" Commission Kelly states, "The Findings are for denying it. I'll make the motion, then we can vote whichever way we want to Commissioner Fonzi seconded the motion. Motion passed 5:2 by a roll -call vote. (O'Keefe, Beraud opposed) PC Minutes 02/21/06 Page 5 of 11 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2006-0176 Owner: Atascadero Mutual Water Company, 5005 El Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422 Applicant: Raminha Construction, Inc., 4401 El Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422 Project Title: Conditional Use Permit 2006-0176 Project 6805 Sycamore Ave., Atascadero, CA 93422, APN 028-121-001 Location: General Plan Designation: Industrial Zoning District: Industrial Park Project The proposed project consists of utilizing an existing public agency equipment and storage yard for a private Description: construction business use. Yard and building improvements will remain unchanged. Visual screening along Sycamore Avenue is proposed with new drought -tolerant landscape trees, shrubs, and vinyl privacy slats within the existing chain-link fence and entry gate. Proposed As an existing facility with no building construction or significant expansion of use, the project qualifies for Environmental a categorical exemption, category 1. A notice of exemption has been prepared for the project as identified in Determination draft Planning Commission Resolution 2006-0015. Deputy Community Development Director Steve McHarris gave the staff report and answered questions of the Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT David Raminha, applicant, spoke about his request and answered questions of the Commission. Chairperson Beraud closed the Public Comment period. MOTION: By Commissioner Kelley and seconded by Commissioner Porter to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006-0018 approving Conditional Use permit 2006-0176. Motion passed 7:0 by a roll -call vote. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2004-0146 AMENDMENT Owner: Peter Laughlin, Laughlin Development, 479 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940 Applicant: Trimark Pacific Homes, 31173 Tower Rd., Visalia, CA 93292 Project Title: Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 2004-0146 Project Location: 2705 El Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422, APN 049-151-008, 009, 010 General Plan Designation: High Density Residential Zoning District: Residential Multi -Family — 16 Project Description: Amendment to Master Plan of Development to change 1 -car garages to 2 -car garages, eliminate retaining walls, and provide streetscape architecture modifications. PC Minutes 02/21/06 Page 6 of 11 Proposed Consistent with previously certified Mitigated Negative Declaration. Environmental Determination Associate Planner Kelly Gleason gave the staff report and answered questions of the Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT Rick Lang, applicant's representative, answered questions of the Commission. Chairperson Beraud closed the Public Comment period. MOTION: By Commissioner Fonzi and seconded by Commissioner Porter to adopt Resolution PC 2006-0021 approving Conditional Use Permit 2003-0116 and 2004-0146 (Master Plan of Development for Emerald Ridge Phase I, II and III) Amendment based on finding and subject to Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Monitoring and including an amendment to Condition #9 that the Commission's intent is to incorporate retailing walls into the open space area nearest the tot lot to meet or exceed the tot lot area in the original plan. Motion passed 7:0 by a roll -call vote. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-0043 AMENDMENT Owners: Crown Castle, 2000 Corporate Dr., South Pointe, PA 15317 Michael Frederick, P O Box 573, Atascadero, CA 93422 Applicant: Bechtel/Cingular Wireless, 4685 MacArthur Ct. #480, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Project Title: Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 2001-0043, Telecommunications Facility Project 2850 El Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422, APN 049-201-040 Location: General Plan Designation: General Commercial Zoning District: Commercial Park Project Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit to allow for installation of an additional 6 panel antennas and Description: 12 tower mounted amplifier units on a monopine facility. There will be no net increase in land use area. Proposed Class le Categorical Exemption (existing facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act. Environmental Determination: Associate Planner Kerry Margason gave the staff report and answered questions of the Commission. It was reported that the applicant has changed the request from six antennas to one. PC Minutes 02/21/06 Page 7 of 11 PUBLIC COMMENT Russell Story, applicant's representative, spoke about the amplifiers and answered questions of the Commission. Chairperson Beraud closed the Public Comment period. MOTION: By Vice Chairperson O'Keefe and seconded by Commissioner Fonzi to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006-0020 approving Conditional Use Permit Amendment 2001-0043, with the change from six panels to one. Motion passed 7:0 by a roll -call vote. 7. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2005-0075 Owners: Micah & Lisa Mumford, 7405 San Gabriel Rd., & Charles Inman, 7930 Santa Ysabel Ave., Atascadero Applicant: Sholders Land Surveys, 9301 Central Ave., Garden Grove, CA 92844 Project Title: Tentative Parcel Map 2005-0075 Project 9075 San Diego Road, Atascadero, CA 93422, APN 045-441-005 Location: General Plan Designation: RE (Residential Estate) Zoning District: RS (Residential Suburban) Project Minor 3 -lot subdivision on slopes of less than ten percent with a request for native tree removal. Description: Proposed Class 15 Categorical Exemption (minor land division) of the California Environmental Quality Act. Environmental Determination Associate Planner Kerry Margason gave the staff report and answered questions of the Commission. A correction to Exhibit B and additional language to Condition #42 was distributed to the Commission. (Exhibit A) PUBLIC COMMENT Micah Mumford, applicant, spoke about the project and tree removals, and answered questions of the Commission. William Mehring stated he owns four properties along the applicant's eastern border and expressed his concern regarding the loss of trees from this project and how the flag lot will affect the trees on his property. Eric Greening stated his concern with the integrity and application of the tree ordinance and stated there was no evidence to make the findings that must be made for the ordinance. PC Minutes 02/21/06 Page 8 of 11 Bob Briggs pointed out that most all flag lots in the surrounding areas have straight access and some distance between the other houses and to configure this project otherwise would affect the value of the property. Chip Tamagni, project arborist, spoke about the options he had considered for the trees on this property and suggested reducing the size of the main flag road to save some of the larger trees on the property. Mr. Tamagni answered questions of the Commission. Paulette Gill stated that this project will abut her property and spoke about the negative impacts to her property by the proposed tree removals and flag road. Charles Inman, applicant, explained why the tree removals were necessary and spoke about the impacts to neighboring properties. William Mehring suggested that the flag could be created with an easement accessing the two back properties. He also expressed concern with the view shed changes that will occur with the tree removals. Eric Greening indicated that this is too big of an issue to attempt to resolve it at this time and raised several issues that should be considered before moving forward. Micah Mumford, applicant, stated that there was an arborists map turned in with the report. Chairperson Beraud closed the Public Comment period. Commissioner Kelley suggested more information was needed to make a decision including the arborist's map, alternative designs including making the easement wider and roadway narrower, and meandering the roadway. He recommended bringing this back as quickly as possible and that any proposed driveway design must have prior approval from the Fire Department. Chairperson Beraud adjourned the hearing at 9:31 p.m. Chairperson Beraud called the meeting back to order at 9:36 p.m. Vice Chairperson O'Keefe stated the Commission must look at alternative layouts and designs in relation to the Tree Ordinance, that visual impact must be considered as well as a conceptual layout with clustering. MOTION: By Commissioner Kelley and seconded by Commissioner Jones to continue this item and that the applicant, in conjunction with the arborist and the Planning Department and the Engineering Department, work on an alternative driveway design that will offer lesser impact to trees and the possibility of saving as many trees as we can utilizing widening the PC Minutes 02/21/06 Page 9 of 11 easement if needed and narrowing the paved part of the driveway and, upon whichever design they end up with to bring back to the Planning Commission, that it be run by the Fire Department for their approval before it comes back to the Commission, and that clustering will be one of options staff will bring back with a conceptual drawing, and that the trees will be marked including trees on the neighbor's lot that would be impacted. Motion passed 7:0 by a roll -call vote. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND REPORTS Commissioner Jones asked that Commission members be made aware of any training opportunities that may come up in 2006, and reminded staff of the Commission discussion about not letting items on the agenda that had incomplete landscape plans or arborists reports. He asked for clarification on ex parte communications and spoke about the increased use of Water Company lands for entrepreneurial uses and whether there should be different criteria applied to them. Commissioner Jones recognized Public Works Director Steve Kahn, Council Member Scalise and Mayor Romero (San Luis Obispo) for their efforts at the SLOCOG meeting on behalf of Atascadero. Community Development Director Warren Frace explained that contact with an applicant, property owner, or another person with a vested interest in a project should be announced during the Ex Parte Communications period. Commissioner Kelley stated he is uncomfortable when the Water Company puts conditions other than a will -serve letter on projects that come before the Commission. Vice Chairperson O'Keefe questioned the variance approved earlier tonight and was concerned because no findings were made. Director Frace stated staff would review the tape and report back on the status of the approval at the next meeting. Commissioner Kelley asked for an update on the Compassionate Care Center and the proposed ordinance. Director Frace reported that the draft ordinance on medical marijuana dispensaries will be on the next Planning Commission agenda. Chairperson Beraud questioned when the motorcycle ordinance would be reviewed by the City Council. Director Frace stated he would check and report back. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Community Development Director Frace stated that the issue of incomplete applications and tree plans will be looked at to prevent a future reoccurrence and reviewed the agenda for the next Commission meeting. Staff is looking at a possible date for a joint PC Minutes 02/21/06 Page 10 of 11 session with the City Council on March 14th to discuss condo conversions and other affordable housing issues. There may also be a workshop with the City Council on March 28th to discuss a general plan amendment development project. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Beraud adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission March 7, 2006. MEETING RECORDED AND MINUTES PREPARED BY: Grace Pucci, Recording Secretary The following exhibit is available for review in the Community Development Department: Exhibit A — Memorandum to Item #7 PC Minutes 02/21/06 Page 11 of 11