Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_2003-04-15_AgendaPacketCITY OFATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Regular Meeting April 15, 2003 — 7:00 P.M. City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Ave. — 4th Floor, - Atascadero, California CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call: Chairperson Fonzi Vice Chairperson Kelley Commissioner Bentz Commissioner Beraud Commissioner Jones Commissioner O'Keefe Commissioner Porter APPROVAL OF AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT (This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on any matter not on this agenda and over which the Commission has jurisdiction. Speakers are limited to five minutes. Please state your name and address for the record before making your presentation. The Commission may take action to direct the staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda) CONSENT CALENDAR (All items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and non -controversial by City Staff and will be approved by one motion if no member of the Commission or public wishes to comment or ask questions) 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON APRIL 1, 2003. 2. FINAL MAP ACCEPTANCE, FMP 2003-0052: TTM 2002-0022 (Tract 2439, Parcel Map AT 02-0236, Parcel Mau AT 02-0237) TRAFFIC WAY INDUSTRIAL CONDOMINIUMS. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORTS PUBLIC HEARINGS (For each of the following items, the public will be given an opportunity to speak. After a staff report, the Chair will open the public hearing and invite the applicant or applicant's representative to make any comments. Members of the public will be invited to provide testimony to the Commission following the applicant. Speakers should state their name and address for the record and can address the Commission for five minutes. After all public comments have been received, the public hearing will be closed, and the Commission will discuss the item and take appropriate action(s).) 3. APPEAL 2003-0001 - An appeal of the Community Development Director's decision to deny a request to apply for a reduction of the minimum lot size for a parcel within the RSF-Y zoning district. Applicant: Walter Togni, 6605 Santa Ynez Avenue, Atascadero, CA 93422 Project Title: Appeal 2003-0001 Project Location: 7435, 7445 Sombrilla Avenue, Atascadero, CA 93422 (San Luis Obispo County); APN 030-021-005 Project An appeal of the Community Development Director's decision to deny a request to apply for Description: a reduction of the minimum lot size for a parcel within the RSF-Y zoning district. The General Plan Land Use Designation is Single Family Residential. The site is zoned Residential Single Family -Y, a medium density single family zoning designation with a minimum lot size of 1.0 acre. Proposed CEQA Exemption by Statute Section 15061. The project will have no significant effect on Environmental the environment. Determination Staff The Planning Commission deny an appeal to apply for a variance and subdivision of a 1.83 - acre lot into two lots of I -acre and .83 -acres. The variance allowed a reduction in the Recommendation minimum 1 -acre lot size of the SFR -Y zoning district for the proposed site. 4. ZONE CHANGE 2002-0023 — DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL FIRST FLOOR USES ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT Applicant: City of Atascadero, 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero CA 93422 Project Title: Downtown Commercial Zoning Text Amendment, Zone Change 2002-0023 Project Location: Atascadero Downtown Commercial District, Atascadero, CA 93422 (San Luis Obispo County) Project The proposed project consists of a zoning text amendment of the City's Downtown Zoning Description: District ordinance, based upon the request of the Atascadero Main Street Organization. The proposed zoning text amendment would permit office, business & vocational school, research & development, health care, and broadcasting service uses on the first floor within the Downtown Commercial (DC) zoning district, with appearance review. Also, handicapped accessible residential units would be allowed on the first floor in non -storefront locations. Proposed CEQA Exemption by Statute Section 15061. The project will have no significant effect on Environmental the environment. Determination Staff Adopt Resolution No. PC 2002-0052 recommending that the City Council introduce an ordinance for first reading by title only to approve Zone Change 2003-0023 based on Recommendation findings. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS & REPORTS ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be May 6, 2003 at City Hall in the 4`h Floor Rotunda, 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero. Please note: Should anyone challenge in court any proposed development entitlement listed on this Agenda, that person may be limited to raising those issues addressed at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission atlor prior to this public hearing. \\Cityhall\CDvlpmnt\— PC Agendas\PC 2003\PC Agenda. 04-15-03.am.doc City ofAtascadero WELCOME TO THE ATASCADER0 PLANNING COMMISSION MEE TING The Planning Commission meets in regular session on the first and third Tuesday of each month at 7: 00 p.m., in the Rotunda of City Hall. Matters are considered by the Commission in the order of the printed Agenda. Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the Agenda are on file in the office of the Community Development Department and are available for public inspection during City Hall business hours at the Permit Center counter. An agenda packet is also available for public review at the Atascadero Library, 6850 Morro Road. All documents submitted by the public during Commission meetings that are either read into the record or referred to in their statement will be noted in the minutes and available for review in the Community Development Department office. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City meeting or other services offered by this City, please contact the City Manager's Office, (805) 461-5010, or the City Clerk's Office, (805) 461-5074. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist the City staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service. TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda. The Chairperson will identify the subject, staff will give their report, and the Commission will ask questions of staff. The Chairperson will announce when the public comment period is open and will request anyone interested to address the Commission regarding the matter being considered to step up to the podium. If you wish to speak for, against or comment in any way: • You must approach the podium and be recognized by the Chairperson • Give your name and address (not required) • Make your statement • All comments should be made to the Chairperson and Commission • All comments limited to 5 minutes (unless changed by the Commission) • No one may speak for a second time until everyone wishing to speak has had an opportunity to do so, and no one may speak more than twice on any item. The Chairperson will announce when the public comment period is closed, and thereafter, no further public comments will be heard by the Commission. TO SPEAK ON SUBJECTS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA Under Agenda item, "PUBLIC HEARINGS," the Chairperson will call for anyone from the audience having business with the Commission to: • Please approach the podium and be recognized • Give your name and address (not required) • State the nature of your business This is the time items not on the Agenda may be brought to the Commission's attention. A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum (unless changed by the Commission). Cdvlpmnt/PC Agenda/ -Welcome and meeting information1doc ITEM NUMBER: 1 DRAFT DATE: 04/15/03 CITY OFATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting April 1, 2003 — 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fonzi called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and Commissioner Porter led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bentz, Beraud, O'Keefe, Porter, Kelley and Chairperson Fonzi Absent: Commissioner Jones Staff: Community Development Director Warren Frace, Associate Planner Glenn Rider, Planning Services Manager Steve McHarris, Assistant Planner Kelly Davis and Recording Secretary Grace Pucci. PUBLIC COMMENT None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON MARCH 18, 2003. MOTION: By Commissioner Bentz and seconded by Vice Chairperson Kelley to approve the Consent Calendar. AYES: Commissioners Bentz, Beraud, Porter, O'Keefe, Kelley and Chairperson Fonzi NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Motion passed 6:0 by a roll -call vote. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORTS 2. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (TRP) #2003-0031: 4605 OBISPO RD. Request to remove two (2) native OAK trees located at 4605 Obispo Rd. (APN 049-111-023) Staff Recommends: The Planning Commission adopt Resolution PC 2003-0041 to approve the request to remove two native oak trees subject to the guidelines and mitigation required by the Atascadero Native Tree Ordinance. Assistant Planner Kelly Davis provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT — None MOTION: By Vice Chairperson Kelley and seconded by Commissioner Porter to adopt Resolution PC 2003-0041 to approve the request to remove two native oak trees subject to the guidelines and mitigation required by the Atascadero Native Tree Ordinance. AYES: Commissioners Porter, O'Keefe, Beraud, Bentz, Kelley and Chairperson Fonzi NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Motion passed 6:0 by a roll -call vote. 3. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (TRP) #2003-0028: 7128 VALLE AVE. Request to remove one (1) native oak tree over 24 -inches dbh at 7128 Valle Ave. Staff Recommends: The Planning Commission adopt Resolution PC 2003-0042 to approve the request to remove one native oak tree subject to the guidelines and mitigation required by the Atascadero Native Tree Ordinance. Assistant Planner Kelly Davis provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission. Commissioner O'Keefe stated that she could not locate the site for this tree removal and subsequently was unable to view the tree in question. She suggested that it would be helpful on sites where there is poor visibility to mark the site and tag the tree to be removed. PUBLIC COMMENT Ursula Luna, resident of Atascadero, reminded the Commission that they are conducting public business and for this reason there is the posting/notification of the site and tagging of trees for removal in the guidelines of the Tree Ordinance. It is important that the public as well as the Commission be able to locate trees to be removed. Chairperson Fonzi closed the Public Comment period. MOTION: By Vice Chairperson Kelley and seconded by Commissioner Bentz to adopt Resolution PC 2003-0042 to approve the request to remove one native oak tree subject to the guidelines and mitigation required by the Atascadero Native Tree Ordinance. AYES: Commissioners Bentz, Porter, Beraud, Kelley and Chairperson Fonzi NOES: Commissioner O'Keefe ABSTAIN: None Motion passed 5:1 by a roll -call vote. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS & REPORTS 4. DISCUSSION OF THE ATASCADERO NATIVE TREE ORDINANCE Community Development Director Warren Frace provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission. Commissioner Beraud read a prepared statement regarding the City's Native Tree Ordinance into the record. (Attachment A) Vice Chairperson Kelley stated that he hoped the Commission could reach some consensus regarding the Tree Ordinance. He would like to see an ordinance that will protect all the trees in town, is realistic, that everyone can work with, and if violated that there are penalties incurred. He indicated that he has never come across anyone in Atascadero that wants to kill a tree; rather it happens by accident. Commissioner Bentz indicated he knows that arborists are professional people and there is no conflict when the individuals they are to monitor hire them. He feels a professional arborist would do nothing to sacrifice their professional standing, that they can be trusted to do a good job and that it is right for the developer to pay for the arborist's report. He would also like to see a set of standards by which everyone would be judged and penalties would be assessed. He is against charging any fee for removal of a dead tree unless that tree was killed on purpose and it can be proved that the property owner was responsible. Commissioner O'Keefe clarified the difference between Certified Arborists and a subset of arborists who are Consulting Arborists. Consulting Arborists are qualified to do tree protection plans. She feels that Consulting Arborists should be used for preparation of all tree reports. Commissioner Porter felt that arborists hired by the developer would act in a professional manner because it will ultimately benefit the developer to know in advance what needs to be done. Chairperson Fonzi outlined several areas of concern for her: 1) not all native trees are included on the list, 2) would like a study on the elm trees in the area, 3) does not feel an individual should be charged a fee for the removal of a dead tree, 4) what consequences are in place for those who flaunt the guidelines, and 5) how can the guidelines be enforced. PUBLIC COMMENT Jack Brazeal, Paso Robles, spoke about arborist's reports and how they are initiated. He stated that the objective of the arborist's report is to protect and preserve the natural resources/native oak trees in Atascadero. The problem he sees is the initiation of the requirements of the report and the follow through. He would like to see enforcement of the guidelines. Rick Matthews, 6950 Navarette Avenue, stated that regarding dead trees, the issue is not money, but in certain cases and especially in undeveloped areas, dead trees fall, decompose and feed the forest. Mr. Matthews read from a prepared statement in support of the Native Tree Ordinance. Ursula Luna indicated that she agreed with the previous speaker regarding the replacement of dead trees. She felt there should be a resource person employed by the city to look at all natural resources in Atascadero, i.e. trees, creeks, etc. The problem as she sees it is enforcement of the ordinance. Rolf Messman, Templeton, stated that any changes made to the ordinance should be made clearly and in a straightforward manner. He would like to see the process for tree removal clearly spelled out to make it easier for the applicant to comply. Chairperson Fonzi closed the Public Comment period. Commissioner O'Keefe make the following recommendations regarding the Native Tree Ordinance: 1. Enforcement: not sufficient staff to properly enforce the ordinance. 2. Arborist on staff. would take over enforcement and relive staff of this task. 3. A problem exists with a few developers who give all developers a bad name. 4. Native Tree Guidelines #2.A: There is a problem with fencing in that stakes are placed too far apart and not tied down tightly. It should be spelled out how many ties are required, etc. 5. Native Tree Guidelines #3.A.3: The chart should reflect an equal value. 6. Native Tree Guidelines #3.C: Conservation Easement paragraph is too vague; there should be some evaluation criteria. 7. Would like to see a list of consulting arborist's available from the City to applicants. 8. Warning signs should be posted when trees are to be protected and they should state that the fencing couldn't be removed. 9. It would be helpful to have preprinted forms listing all steps required for a tree protection plan. 10. There should be a pre -construction meeting including the construction superintendent, planning staff, developer and anyone else working on the site who could potentially impact the trees. 11. There should be a bonding requirement when tree roots are impacted 50% or more. 12. Whenever a project is revised planning staff should look at it to determine if a new tree protection plan is needed. 13. The final inspection should include a signoff by the arborist. Mrs. O'Keefe felt there should be some monetary value for removing a dead tree because they do have a value. Commissioner Bentz expressed his feeling that any arborist holding a license should be qualified to do the work. He does not feel it is necessary for the City to provide an arborist and does not support having an arborist on the City staff, however, he feels it may be a good idea to put together a list of qualified arborists. Commissioner Bentz stated that he does not agree with bonding as a tree may get sick from infestation or some disease, and he does not feel there should be a charge for removal of a dead tree. Vice Chairperson Kelley referred to the fencing requirement in the tree ordinance and felt it was a realistic measurement. He felt there shouldn't be a difference in mitigation for a multi -family versus single-family zone. He stressed education and communication as a very important aspect of tree preservation and thought ANTA could perhaps get funds from the mitigation fund and print up flyers and other educational material. Vice Chairperson Kelley stated he was against bonding and penalties for removing dead trees. Chairperson Fonzi reviewed the comments and recommendations that were made at tonight's meeting. COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS & REPORTS Commissioner O'Keefe referred to a subdivision on Coromar, and asked for clarification on the access easement for the flag lots. Director Frace stated that staff have taken a second look at this lot and will contact the applicant to inform him that when the final map is drawn it should be drawn with the rear lot owning in fee to the street. Commissioner O'Keefe spoke about the Russell and Hendrix projects and asked at what point in the project developments was the deed - restricted housing brought up. Mr. Frace explained both projects and the time of notification for deed restriction; he also reviewed the progress on an inclusionary housing ordinance. Commissioner O'Keefe asked about the status of the Shores project on Traffic Way where the fencing has come down. Mr. Frace indicated that he would look into it and report back. Commissioner O'Keefe remarked that when an agendized project is to be continued it would be helpful if the Commission could be told at the beginning of the meeting. Director Frace suggested an item at the beginning of the meeting for approval of the agenda. Vice Chairperson Kelley asked if the issue of guesthouses would be re -addressed. Mr. Frace stated that guesthouses were eliminated in the new General Plan. Council would need to direct staff to re -visit the issue. Chairperson Fonzi asked about the status of the posting issue on Parriza Court. Mr. Frace stated that it has been appealed to Council, a hearing date will most likely be in early May. He indicated staff was looking at a solution of posting hearing items on all sites for any item that needs a public hearing/notification. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Fonzi adjourned the meeting at 8:27 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on April 15, 2003. MEETING RECORDED AND MINUTES PREPARED BY: Grace Pucci, Recording Secretary The following exhibits are available for review in the Community Development Department: Attachment A — Commissioner Beraud, prepared statement 1\Cityha11\CDv1pmnt\— PC Minutes\PC Minutes 03\PC Minutes 04-01-03.gp.doc Planning Commission Staff Report Public Hearing Final Map 2003-0052 (TTM 2002-0022) (Tract 2439, Parcel Map AT 02-0236, Parcel Map AT 02-0237) Traffic Way Industrial Condominiums 3905-4105 Traffic Way (Jim Shores/Eric Tarr/Wilson Land Surveys) RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff Recommends: Accept Final Parcel Map 2001-0006 (Tract 2439, Parcel Map AT 02-0236, and Parcel Map AT 02-0237). DISCUSSION: Tentative Tract Map 2002-0022 (Tract 2439, Parcel Map AT 02-0236, Parcel Map AT 02-0237) was approved by the Planning Commission on January 21, 2003. The project consisted of a Condominium Tentative Tract Map to divide three existing industrial buildings on three separate lots of record into four individual suites each for separate ownership. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66440 the approving legislative body (City Council) cannot deny a final map that is consistent with an approved tentative map. The legislative body is also required to accept, accept subject to improvement, or reject on behalf of the public, any real property offered for dedication for public use in conformity with the terms of the offer of dedication. No offers of dedication are made on this map. Staff has determined that the Final Parcel Map is consistent with approved Tentative Tract Map. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Final Map 2003-0052 (Tract 2439) Exhibit B: Final Map 2003-0052 (Parcel Map AT 02-0236) Exhibit C: Final Map 2003-0052 (Parcel Map AT 02-0237) Exhibit B Final Map 2003-0052 (Parcel Map AT 02-0236) 3905-4105 Traffic Way Jim Shores/Eric Tarr/Wilson Land Surveys Exhibit C Final Map 2003-0052 (Parcel Map AT 02-0237) 3905-4105 Traffic Way Jim Shores/Eric Tarr/Wilson Land Surveys ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 4/15/03 Planning Commission Staff Report Public Hearing Appeal of the Community Development Director's Denial of a Request to Apply for a Reconsideration of Tentative Parcel Map 2001-0025 7435, 7445 Sombrilla Avenue SUBJECT: APPEAL 2003-0001: An appeal of the Community Development Director's decision to deny a request to apply for a reduction of the minimum lot size for a parcel within the RSF-Y zoning district. The General Plan Land Use Designation is Single Family Residential. The site is zoned Residential Single Family -Y, a medium density single family zoning designation with a minimum lot size of 1.0 acre. RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommends: The Planning Commission deny an appeal to apply for a variance and subdivision of a 1.83 - acre lot into two lots of 1 -acre and 0.83 -acres. The variance would allow a reduction in the minimum 1 -acre lot size of the SFR -Y zoning district for the proposed site. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Applicant: Walter Togni, 6605 Santa Ynez Avenue, Atascadero, CA 93422, Phone: (805) 466-9097 2. Representative: Walter Togni, 6605 Santa Ynez Avenue, Atascadero, CA 93422, Phone: (805) 466-9097 3. Project Address: 7435, 7445 Sombrilla Avenue, Atascadero, CA 93422 4. General Plan Designation: Single Family Residential (SFR) 5. Zoning District: RSF-Y (Residential Single Family with a minimum lot size of 1.00 acres (gross). 6. Site Area: 1.8 Acres (gross) 7. Existing Use: Developed with two single family residences 8. Environmental Status: Exempt (Appeal only) ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 4/15/03 Site description: The site is a steep, hillside lot developed with two single-family residences. The lots surrounding the property at the sides and rear are located in the same zone as the subject property and range in size from 0.271 acres to 2.4 acres. Across the street at the front of the property, the parcels are zoned residential multi -family with a maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre. Project Site DISCUSSION: RMF -10 RS F -Y ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 4/15/03 Background: On December 15, 1998, the Planning Commission approved a request to subdivide the project site into two parcels, 0.83 and 1.0 acres. Although the zoning district does not permit lots of less than 1.0 acre, it was determined that findings for a variance could be applied to permit creation of a lot less than one acre. The approval included a condition of approval that the applicant final the parcel map within two years. As of December 14, 2000, the above-mentioned tentative parcel map expired as the applicant had not prepared or processed a final map. On January 16, 2002, staff received a request form the applicant to re -apply for the same parcel map proposal. Staff determined that the proposal could not be accepted due to General Plan and Zoning Ordinance inconsistencies, which do not allow for a lot split that results in new parcels being less than 1 -acre in size. On January 16, 2003. the Community Development Director provided a similar determination, which included the City Attorney's opinion that the proposed parcel map could not be processed, specifically citing that the original "variance" was not legal and therefore is void and that the original tentative map was not recorded and had expired. Subdivision Design: The subdivision would divide one existing lot into two parcels. The two parcels would have frontage on Sombrilla Avenue serving an existing single family residence on each lot as depicted below. ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 4/15/03 `p r - - PARC t +R1 AT �Y ' General Plan & Zoning Code Consistency: 4sing u dMWOn M: tQi,B.,�;�.. BLOCK E of ATASCADE(rp.vowoyy p4 s Cm' OF AAISCIQ( W ,ST^fi OF OIL00044 p` Mr The General Plan set the minimum lot size for the RSF-Y zone at 1 acre. In implementing and ensuring consistency with the General Plan, the zoning ordinance does not allow for any exception to be made to the minimum lot sizes designated by zone within the General Plan. However, in cases where exceptions to the subdivision ordinance are allowed, Zoning Code Section 11-9.02 states that all of the following findings shall be made: (1) That the property to be divided is of such size or shape, or is affected by such topographic conditions, that it is impossible, impractical or undesirable, in the particular case, to conform to the strict application of the regulations codified in this title; and (2) That the cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not the sole reason for granting the modification; and (3) That the modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity; and (4) That granting the modification is in accord with the intent and purposes of these regulations, and is consistent with the General Plan and with all applicable specific plans or other plans of the City. (b) In granting any exception the Planning Commission shall impose such conditions as are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and assure compliance with the General Plan, with all applicable specific plans, and with the intent and purposes of these regulations. Staff notes that although a variance may be granted when a unique natural feature of the site inhibits or prohibits development opportunities that the surrounding parcels enjoy, it may not be granted for a reduction in the minimum lot size. J / @gyp»' / " aw+W-pr ,i �FJ'iRi74��f+. - r� General Plan & Zoning Code Consistency: 4sing u dMWOn M: tQi,B.,�;�.. BLOCK E of ATASCADE(rp.vowoyy p4 s Cm' OF AAISCIQ( W ,ST^fi OF OIL00044 p` Mr The General Plan set the minimum lot size for the RSF-Y zone at 1 acre. In implementing and ensuring consistency with the General Plan, the zoning ordinance does not allow for any exception to be made to the minimum lot sizes designated by zone within the General Plan. However, in cases where exceptions to the subdivision ordinance are allowed, Zoning Code Section 11-9.02 states that all of the following findings shall be made: (1) That the property to be divided is of such size or shape, or is affected by such topographic conditions, that it is impossible, impractical or undesirable, in the particular case, to conform to the strict application of the regulations codified in this title; and (2) That the cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not the sole reason for granting the modification; and (3) That the modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity; and (4) That granting the modification is in accord with the intent and purposes of these regulations, and is consistent with the General Plan and with all applicable specific plans or other plans of the City. (b) In granting any exception the Planning Commission shall impose such conditions as are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and assure compliance with the General Plan, with all applicable specific plans, and with the intent and purposes of these regulations. Staff notes that although a variance may be granted when a unique natural feature of the site inhibits or prohibits development opportunities that the surrounding parcels enjoy, it may not be granted for a reduction in the minimum lot size. ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 4/15/03 It is the opinion of staff that the applicant's request for a reduction in the minimum lot size for one particular parcel within the RSF-Y zoning district is inconsistent with the General Plan and zoning ordinance. Appeal Justification: The appellant believes that the Planning Commission can make the same findings as it did in 1998 because the project site is within an area with several non -conforming (under 1 -acre) lots; the project site already contains two homes that would be on separate lots; and the properties could be sold separately. Staff Comment: The applicant's justification does not apply for the following reasons: a) The Variance Finding cannot be made; b) Non -conforming (smaller lots) are not unique in Atascadero as they exists throughout the City and particularly within the SFR -Y zoning district; and c) The General Plan provides Policy 2.2 Program 1.0 that only allows smaller lots if certain criteria can be met. The applicant's request and justification does not meet this criterion. Conclusion It is the opinion of staff that the proposed appeal cannot be granted for the following reasons: 1. A variance cannot apply to the reduction in minimum lot size within a zoning district; 2. The 1998 Planning Commission decision to approve the original subdivision and variance request was based on findings that cannot be legally met; and 3. The 1998 Planning Commission decision to approve the original subdivision and variance request has expired. 4. There are no variance , zoning overlays, or other mechanisms available to allow the subject site to be subdivided into lots less than 1 -acre in size. ALTERNATIVES: 1. The Commission may grant the appeal and direct staff to accept the application for subdivision. The Planning Commission would still have to hear the item and address the Finding legality 2. The Commission may refer the item back to staff for additional information or analysis. Direction should be given to staff and the applicant on required information. PREPARED BY: Steve McHarris, Planning Services Manager ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 4/15/03 1_10 1:U1\ .U__0_ . Attachment 1 -- Location Maps (General Plan and Zoning) Attachment 2 Draft Resolution PC 2003-0044 Attachment 3 -- Letter of appeal from Walter Togni, January 27, 2003 Attachment 4 -- Letter of Determination (3rd request), January 16, 2003 Attachment 5 -- Letter of Determination (TPM 2001-0025), December 3, 2001 Attachment 6 -- TPM 98011, VAR 980 Staff Report with attachments ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 4/15/03 ATTACHMENT 1: Location Map (General Plan / Zoning) APL 2003-0001 7435, 7445 Sombrilla Avenue Project Site: 7435, 7445 Sombrilla Avenue General Plan: Single Family Residential Zoning: Residential Single Family (RSF-Y) ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 4/15/03 ATTACHMENT 2: Draft Resolution PC 2003-0044 APL 2003-0001 7435, 7445 Sombrilla Avenue DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2003-0044 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DENYING APL 2003-0001 (7435, 7445 Sombrilla Avenue / Walter Togni) WHEREAS, a request to submit an application has been received from Walter Togni (6605 Santa Ynez Avenue, Atascadero, CA 93422) Applicant and Property Owner, for a reduction of the minimum lot size for a parcel within the RSF-Y zoning district. The General Plan Land Use Designation is Single Family Residential. The site is zoned Residential Single Family -Y, a medium density single family zoning designation with a minimum lot size of 1.0 acre on APN 030-021-005; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero held a public hearing to consider the request; and, NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero, at a public hearing held on Tuesday, April 15, 2003, hereby resolves to deny Appeal 2003-0001 based on the following findings: 1. A variance cannot apply to the reduction in minimum lot size within a zoning district; 2. The 1998 Planning Commission decision to approve the original subdivision and variance request was based on findings that cannot be legally met; and 3. The 1998 Planning Commission decision to approve the original subdivision and variance request has expired. 4. There are no variance, zoning overlays, or other mechanisms available to allow the subject site to be subdivided into lots less than 1 -acre in size. ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 4/15/03 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby deny Appeal 2003-0001. On motion by Commissioner , and seconded by Commissioner the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote: AYES: ( ) NOES: ( ) ABSENT: ( ) ABSTAIN: ( ) ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CA Roberta Fonzi, Planning Commission Chairperson Attest: Warren Frace Planning Commission Secretary Planning Commission Staff R Public Hearing ITEM NUMBER: 4 DATE: 4-15-03 ort Zone Change 2002-0023 Downtown Commercial Zoning Text Amendment (City of Atascadero/Main Street Organization) SUBJECT: The proposed project consists of a zoning text amendment of the City's Downtown Zoning District ordinance, based upon the request of the Atascadero Main Street Organization. The proposed zoning text amendment would permit office, business & vocational school, research & development, health care, and broadcasting service uses on the first floor within the Downtown Commercial (DC) zoning district, with appearance review by the Main Street Organization. Also, handicapped accessible residential units would be allowed on the first floor in non -storefront locations. The proposed amendment is identified in Attachment 2. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 2003-0045 recommending that the City Council introduce an ordinance for first reading by title only to approve Zone Change 2002-0023 allowing appearance review by the Main Street organization. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Applicant: City of Atascadero, 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, CA 93422 Phone: 805/461-5035 2. Representative: Atascadero Main Street Organization, 5735 El Camino Real, Suite K, Atascadero, CA 93422 Phone: 805/462-0177 3. Project Address: Downtown Commercial District 4. General Plan Designation: D (Downtown) ITEM NUMBER: 4 DATE: 4-15-03 5. Zoning District: DC (Downtown Commercial) 6. Existing Use: Downtown Commercial, Office and Residential 7. Environmental Status: CEQA Exemption by Statute Section 15061. The project will have no significant effect on the environment. Project Area: The project area affected by the zoning text amendment is located within the Atascadero downtown zoning district area identified as DC — Downtown Commercial. BACKGROUND On July 25, 2000, the City Council adopted the Atascadero Downtown Revitalization Plan which established the downtown zoning district in order to promote development of a lively pedestrian environment by locating shops and restaurants along sidewalks that would attract customers. To this effect, the code restricts first floor office uses (professional and similar office & service uses) and residential uses to the second and third floors of buildings. On April 23, 2002, the Atascadero Main Street Organization requested that the Community Redevelopment Agency of Atascadero pay the administrative filing fee of $800.00, which they approved, for Main Street to pursue amendment of the Downtown Commercial Zoning District to accommodate non -retail uses interested in occupying ground floor, storefront locations as a way to address vacancies occurring within the downtown commercial district, as follows: 1. To allow office, business & vocational school, research & development, health care, and broadcasting service uses on the first floor within the Downtown Commercial (DC) zoning district; and 2. To allow handicapped accessible residential units as a permitted use to more easily accommodate ADA requirements. While not endorsing or opposing the change, the Redevelopment Agency directed City staff to review the current ordinance and forward the request to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. During the past year, the Main Street Organization studied their original request and has recently revised their proposal to include a appearance review procedure for the above -stated first floor storefront uses. ITEM NUMBER: 4 DATE: 4-15-03 STAFF ANALYSIS: Downtown Revitalization Plan: The adopted Atascadero Downtown Revitalization Plan was developed in a collaborative effort of business owners, property owners, members of the public and the City through a series of workshops and committees. The consensus on an overall vision for the Downtown area as it relates to storefronts and first floor uses is defined in the Plan's Community Vision and Land Use sections as follows: Community Vision statement: "The buildings are full and the windows reveal a range of interesting products and activities within. The storefronts have been refreshed with paint, new signs, awnings and flowers. " Land Use statement: "The predominate land use type desired in the Downtown is multi- story mixed uses with retail commercial uses occupying the ground floor and residential uses, offices, and visitor accommodations on the upper stories. Mixed-use development is most conducive to the creation of a pedestrian oriented environment. Occupying this area of the Downtown with first floor retail commercial uses will provide high customer turnover, large volumes of pedestrian traffic, interesting windows and storefront displays, signs designed for pedestrian viewing, and merchandising likely to be purchased in a multiple -stop shopping trip... " Existing Use Demand: The Plan's Vision statement and Land Use goals resulted in specific implementation methods, including establishment and location of allowable land uses. Even prior to the Plan adoption, the Downtown area has experienced higher vacancy rates than other commercial areas within the City. It is the Main Street Organization's desire to allow office and similar uses to fill existing downtown vacancies rather than retain downtown first floor locations exclusively for retail uses and continue to experience relatively higher vacancy rates. The Main Street Organization has provided the existing downtown vacancies as tabulated in the table below. Downtown Property for Lease Description Lease Price Building Size Availability Parking 5865 Traffic Way Commercial Building $3,400 per month 4,000 Sq. Ft. Available 5 covered 6700 El Camino `B" Mechanic Shop $1,800 per month 2,000 Sq. Ft. Available 12 Spaces 5890 Traffic Way $1,200 per month 1,500 Sq. Ft. Available 5735 El Camino Real $0.75/sf per month 1,560 Sq. Ft. Available 5810 Traffic Way $800 per month 1,520 Available ITEM NUMBER: 4 DATE: 4-15-03 Proposed Amendment: The proposed amendment represents a significant change in the Plan's policy direction and implementing ordinance. The Downtown Revitalization Plan identifies the effect of filling existing storefront locations with office -type uses as a detraction for downtown retail business. However, existing economic conditions have left storefront locations vacant. Additional downtown factors such as the Carlton Hotel construction may contribute to the inactivity. It is the opinion of staff that completion of the Carlton Hotel, combined with the City's commitment to downtown streetscape and other improvements, recent downtown property acquisition, and the ongoing Atascadero Main Street promotional activities will generate significant interest in downtown retail storefront locations in the near future. Examples of the advantages of retail use versus office use of storefront locations are identified in the photographs below. Staff notes that in addition to the diminished activity generated by office -type uses, these uses often detract from the physical downtown appearance through storefront window tinting, interior window coverings, etc. that maximize the interior office use. The following photos illustrate the exterior storefront appearance of both the office -type uses and the retail -oriented uses. The Atascadero Main Street Organization proposes to minimize the potential negative storefront effects by requiring appearance review by a committee of the Main Street Organization prior to a formal review by City staff. Refer to the attached Main Street review information for further details. Examples - Typical Office/Professional Uses No storefront interest Signs of little pedestrian interest :- i • C: T w Diminished _ use of pedestrian_ - -- Sidewalk void of interest ITEM NUMBER: 4 DATE: 4-15-03 i -Jr - / PARKIN(, -REAR Windows often covered or tinted "fid'"-"• -K�;.' ITEM NUMBER: 4 DATE: 4-15-03 ALTERNATIVES: The following table summarizes the Main Street proposal and an alternative for Planning Commission consideration: CONCLUSIONS: The Downtown Revitalization Plan emphasizes the preservation of sidewalk storefronts for retail and restaurant type uses. A primary goal of the Downtown Revitalization Plan is to create a lively and interesting pedestrian experience along Downtown sidewalks. Uses such as offices, health care and vocational or broadcasting schools do not depend on sidewalk exposure to attract customers. Consequently, these uses have less incentive to create an interesting pedestrian experience and would likely detract from an interesting pedestrian environment, resulting in less space for prospective retailers and less incentive for property owners to develop retail -oriented projects downtown. The proposed text amendment and alternative seeks to address this concern by requiring office uses to be subject to appearance review by the Main Street Organization. An option would be to allow office uses subject to appearance review by the Planning Commission. However, the Planning Commission also has the option of maintaining the existing downtown commercial ordinance, which is consistent with the adopted Revitalization Plan. PREPARED BY: Steve McHarris, Planning Services Manager Staff Recommended: Alternative Action: Ground Floor Uses Main Street CUP Alternative Currently not permitted Appearance Review Conditionally Permitted Alternative Use w/ Planning * Permitted Use w/ Commission Appearance Review & no Appearance Review & special findings no special findings Office P* CUP Business & Vocational P* CUP School Research & P* CUP Development Health Care P* CUP Broadcasting Service I P* CUP ADA Residential I P* CUP CONCLUSIONS: The Downtown Revitalization Plan emphasizes the preservation of sidewalk storefronts for retail and restaurant type uses. A primary goal of the Downtown Revitalization Plan is to create a lively and interesting pedestrian experience along Downtown sidewalks. Uses such as offices, health care and vocational or broadcasting schools do not depend on sidewalk exposure to attract customers. Consequently, these uses have less incentive to create an interesting pedestrian experience and would likely detract from an interesting pedestrian environment, resulting in less space for prospective retailers and less incentive for property owners to develop retail -oriented projects downtown. The proposed text amendment and alternative seeks to address this concern by requiring office uses to be subject to appearance review by the Main Street Organization. An option would be to allow office uses subject to appearance review by the Planning Commission. However, the Planning Commission also has the option of maintaining the existing downtown commercial ordinance, which is consistent with the adopted Revitalization Plan. PREPARED BY: Steve McHarris, Planning Services Manager ITEM NUMBER: 4 DATE: 4-15-03 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 Downtown Zoning District Attachment 2 Draft Resolution PC 2003-0045 Attachment 3 Atascadero Downtown Revitalization Plan Attachment 4 Atascadero Main Street Design Review Information ITEM NUMBER: 4 DATE: 4-15-03 ATTACHMENT 2: Draft Resolution, ZCH 2002-0023 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2003-0045 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 2002-0023 TO AMEND THE DOWNTOWN ZONING DISTRICT ORDINANCE OF THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE (ZCH 2002-0023: Downtown Commercial Ordinance Amendment) WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero has determined that portions of the City's Downtown Zoning Ordinance are inconsistent with the City's commercial revitalization goals for downtown; and, WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero currently has a Downtown Zoning District Ordinance which is part of the City's Zoning Ordinance; and, WHEREAS, the Downtown Zoning Ordinance contains regulations pertaining to restrictions of offices, schools, research & development, and handicapped accessible residential units uses on the first floor within the Downtown Commercial Zoning District; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero, at a duly noticed Public Hearing held on April 15, 2003 to consider a recommendation to the City Council, and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to update the Downtown Zoning Ordinance of the City's Municipal Code, and amend the existing text to ensure the economic revitalization of commercial downtown district; and, WHEREAS, the laws and regulations relating to the preparation and public notice of environmental documents, as set forth in the State and local guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been adhered to; and, NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission takes the following actions: ITEM NUMBER: 4 DATE: 4-15-03 SECTION 1. FINDINGS FOR STATUTORY EXEMPTION 1. The project will have no significant effect on the environment. SECTION 2. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF ZONE TEXT CHANGE. 1. The zone change is consistent with General Plan policies and all other applicable ordinances and policies of the City. 2. Amendment of the zoning ordinance will provide for the orderly development of the community and protect the public welfare. 3. The zone change will not, in itself result in significant environmental impacts in accordance with California environmental laws. SECTION 3. ZONE TEXT CHANGE. Section 15 of Title 9 of the Municipal Code of the City of Atascadero on file in the Community Development Department is hereby amended as shown on the attached Exhibit A, which is made part of this ordinance by reference. SECTION 4. RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. The Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero, in a regular session assembled on April 15, 2003 resolved to recommend that the City Council introduce for first reading an ordinance that would amend the Downtown Commercial Zoning Ordinance consistent with the following: 1. Exhibit A: Zoning Code Text Amendment ITEM NUMBER: 4 DATE: 4-15-03 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be delivered forthwith by the Planning Commission Secretary to the City Council of the City of Atascadero. On motion by Commissioner , and seconded by Commissioner the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote: AYES: ( ) NOES: ( ) ABSENT: ( ) ABSTAIN: ( ) ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CA Roberta Fonzi Planning Commission Chairperson Attest: Warren M. Frace Planning Commission Secretary ITEM NUMBER: 4 DATE: 4-15-03 EXHIBIT A Proposed Amended Downtown Zoning Code Text, ZCH 2002-0023 New Text Deleted Tex DIVISION 9-3 - DOWNTOWN ZONING DISTRICTS Sections: 9-3.261- Purpose of Downtown Districts 9-3.262 - Downtown District Allowable Land Uses and Permit Requirements 9-3.263 - Downtown District General Development Standards 9-3.261- Purpose of Downtown Districts The downtown zoning districts are intended to develop an attractive, pedestrian -oriented, and economically successful downtown area by providing for a mixture of commercial, office, and residential land uses in two- and three-story buildings of traditional architectural styles. The purposes of the individual downtown districts are as follows. A. Downtown Commercial (DC) zoning district. The Downtown Commercial (DC) zoning district is intended to enhance the economic viability and pedestrian -oriented character of the downtown by encouraging: A wide range of retail shops, including artisan craft sales and production; 2. Restaurants, entertainment facilities, lodging, and non -automotive services (banks, health care, etc.); 3. Offices on upper floors, oth er than City government facilities, and offices generate significant pedestrianfr-af€ic; and First floor office uses are allowed with storefront and signagee appearance review and approval of Atascadero Main Street Association, however, office uses are encouraged to locate on upper floors leaving prime first floor spaces available for retail and restaurant spaces. 4. Residential uses on upper floors. B. Downtown Office (DO) zoning district. The Downtown Office (DO) zoning district is intended to apply to properties that border the DC district, where a wide variety of professional and other office uses will encourage a weekday pedestrian flow that can take advantage of the restaurant and shopping opportunities in the overall downtown area. ITEM NUMBER: 4 DATE: 4-15-03 9-3.262 - Downtown District Allowable Land Uses and Permit Requirements The following table identifies the land uses allowed by this Zoning Ordinance in the downtown zoning districts, and the land use permit required to establish each use. In addition to the land use permit required by this Section, special provisions related to certain land uses may apply, Precise Plan approval may also be required for certain uses in compliance with Section 9-1.108. A Building Permit is required prior to any construction. Design Review approval shall be required for all permits, consistent with Appendix A of the Downtown Revitalization Plan. Note: Where the last column in the tables ("Specific Use Regulations") includes a section number, the regulations in the referenced section apply to the use. Provisions in other sections of this Zoning Ordinance may also apply. ITEM NUMBER DATE: 4-15-03 ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE - TITLE 9, ZONING ORDINANCE Downtown Zoning Districts 9-3.262 Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements P Permitted Use (2) for Downtown Zoning Districts CUP Conditional Use Permit required — Use not allowed PERMIT REQUIRED Specific Use LAND USE (1) DC DO Regulations MANUFACTURING & PROCESSING USES Light repair services P — Printing and publishing P P R&D(t) (Research and development including technology) P(3) P R&D - Biotechnology, chemical, pharmaceutical CUP{3) CUP RECREATION, EDUCATION & ASSEMBLY USES Membership Organizations CUP — Amusement services P — Indoor recreation services P — Libraries, museums, galleries P — Public parks and playgrounds P P Schools - Public CUP — Schools - Business and Vocational CUP(3) CUP Studios - Art, dance, martial arts, music, etc. P CUP Public Amusement and Entertainment CUP — RESIDENTIAL USES Home occupations P P 9-6.105 Live/work projects P(5) / CUP( — Multi -family and single-family dwellings P(3) P(3) Senior citizen housing CUP(4) — KEY TO ZONING DISTRICT SYMBOLS DC Downtown Commercial DO Downtown Office Notes: (Only the notes that apply to this page are shown below.) (1) See Section 9-3.701 for land use descriptions. See Section 9-1.109(d) regarding uses not listed. (2) Plot Plan approval required (9-2.107). Precise Plan approval (9-2.108) may also be required. Conditional Use Permit approval required for all projects over 10,000 sf in floor area and multiple family residential developments consisting of twelve or more units. (3) Use allowed enly an seeend or third floor. Residential uses allowed only on second and third floor, except sites north Olmeda Avenue. If a project is required to provide a unit in compliance with the Americans Disability Act, the handicapped accessible unit may be located on a first floor. A first floor unit shall be located in a non -storefront location within a tenants ace. (4) Use allowed only on sites north of Olmeda Avenue. (5) . (b) (5) Permitted use if the residential quarters are located on the 2nd or 3rd floors M (6) Conditional Use Permit required if the residential quarters are located on the 1st floor. ITEM NUMBER DATE: 4-15-03 Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements P Permitted Use (2) for Downtown Zoning Districts CUP Conditional Use Permit required — Use not allowed PERMIT REQUIRED specific Use LAND USE (1) DC DO Regulations RETAIL TRADE Artisan shops P — Auto and vehicle dealerships - Indoor display/ sales only CUP — Building materials and hardware - All activities indoors P — Eating and drinking places - Without drive-thru P — Food and beverage retail sales P — Furniture, home furnishings and equipment P — General Merchandise P — Temporary or seasonal sales P — 9-6.174 SERVICES Automated teller machines (ATMs) P P Banks and financial services - Without drive- through CUP P Bed and Breakfast CUP — Business services P P Child/adult day care centers — CUP Government offices and facilities P P Hotels and motels CUP — Health care services P(3} P Offices IP(4) P Personal services P — KEY TO ZONING DISTRICT SYMBOLS DC Downtown Commercial DO Downtown Office Notes: (Only the notes that apply to this page are shown below.) (1) See Section 9-3.701 for land use descriptions. See Section 9-1.109(d) regarding uses not listed. (2) Plot Plan approval required (9-2.107). Precise Plan approval (9-2.108) may also be required. Conditional Use Permit approval required for all projects over 10,000 sf in floor area. Use allowed only on second r- third floor-, except with CUP approval. CUP approval shallTequire required;(4) Store; a. The proposed use will generate a volume of pedestrian t9raffie similar to a retail ITEM NUMBER DATE: 4-15-03 Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements P Permitted Use (2) for Downtown Zoning Districts CUP Conditional Use Permit required Use not allowed PERMIT REQUIRED Specific Use LAND USE (1) DC DO Regulations TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS, & INFRASTRUCTURE USES Broadcasting studios CUPE P Transit stations and terminals CUP CUP Utility facilities CUP CUP KEY TO ZONING DISTRICT SYMBOLS DC Downtown Commercial DO Downtown Office Notes: (Only the notes that apply to this page are shown below.) (1) See Section 9-3.701 for land use descriptions. See Section 9-1.109(d) regarding uses not listed. (2) Plot Plan approval required (9-2.107). Precise Plan approval (9-2.108) may also be required. Conditional Use Permit approval required for all projects over 10,000 sf in floor area. ITEM NUMBER: 4 DATE: 4-15-03 9-3.263 - Downtown District General Development Standards Subdivisions, new land uses and structures, and alterations to existing land uses and structures, shall be designed, constructed, and/or established in compliance with the requirements in the following table, in addition to the other applicable development standards of this Zoning Ordinance. Development Feature Requirement by Zoning District DC Downtown Commercial DO Downtown Office Minimum lot size No minimum Setbacks Minimum and maximum setbacks required. See Section 9-4.103 for setback measurement, allowed projections into setbacks, and exceptions to setbacks. Front None allowed, except for building As required by Section 9-4.106 insets designed to accommodate when adjacent to a residential outdoor eating and seating areas, zone, none required otherwise. and except for East and West Mall between El Camino Real and Palma Avenue, where a minimum of 20 ft is required. None required Sides (each) None required Rear To be determined throu h Design Review Creek Height limit 45 -feet not to exceed 3 stories; 18 35 ft feet on the west side of El Camino Real between Atascadero Creek and the lot line common to Lots 19 and 20, Block H -B, Atascadero Colony Map. Landscaping As required by Sections 9-4.124 et seq. (Landscaping, Screening and Fencing) Off-street parking None required, except as required As required by Sections 9-4.114 et by 9-4.114 for hotels, motels, and seq. residential uses, and for all development east of Atascadero Creek. Signs See Section 9-15.0005(b) Density Residential de ' a �r �+..,. .,,.a., c a +w„ , +,. ., a E 16 dwellin units acre 16 dwellin units acre