Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_2003-05-06_AgendaPacketCITY OFATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Regular Meeting May 6, 2003 — 7:00 P.M. City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Ave. — 4t" 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 15, 2003. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORTS 2. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 2003-0049: 8380 ALTA VISTA AVE. Request to remove thirteen (13) native oak trees, one of which is in excess of 24 " dbh, in conjunction with the development of an 3,485 square foot new single-family home located at 8380 Alta Vista Ave. (APN 031-114-002) Staff recommends: The Planning Commission adopt Resolution PC 2003-0049 to approve the request to remove thirteen (13) native oak trees subject to the guidelines and mitigation required by the Atascadero Native Tree Ordinance. 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. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2003-0091: RESIDENTIAL SECOND UNIT AT 8875 CARMELITA AVE Applicant: Sean and Claudia Galbreath Project Title: CUP 2003-0091 Project Location: 8875 Carmelita Avenue, Atascadero, CA 93422 (San Luis Obispo County); APN 031-281-030 Project The proposed project, Conditional Use Permit (CUP 2003-0091), is a request to establish a Description: residential second unit at 8875 Carmelita Ave, consistent with the performance standards set forth in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Proposed CEQA Exemption by Statute Section 15303. The project will have no significant effect on Environmental the environment. Determination Staff The Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. PC 2003-0047, certifying the proposed environmental determination, and approving Conditional Use Permit 2003-0091, a request to Recommendation establish a residential second unit within the Residential Single Family -Y zone, based on findings and subject to conditions. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS & REPORTS ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be May 20, 2003 at City Hall in the 4rh 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. 1\CityhaII\CDvlpmnt\— PC Agendas\PC 2003\PC Agenda. 05-6-03.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: DRAFT DATE: 5/06/03 CITY OFATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting April 15, 2003 — 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fonzi called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and Vice Chairperson Kelley led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Beraud, Jones, O'Keefe, Porter, Kelley and Chairperson Fonzi Absent: Commissioner Bentz Staff: Community Development Director Warren Frace, Planning Services Manager Steve McHarris and Recording Secretary Grace Pucci. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There was Commission consensus to approve the agenda. PUBLIC COMMENT Eric Greening stated he appreciated the Commission discussion about the Tree Ordinance at the last meeting and asked if a timeline has been established for addressing suggestions made. Mr. Greening was especially supportive of the suggestion for use of a standardized form for the arborist reports. Community Development Director Warren Frace indicated there was no timeline at this time, however, based on the comments received from the Commission, staff is working on looking at changes to the guidelines in cooperation with the Atascadero Native Tree Association (ANTA). The first order of business for the Council is to work on the inclusionary housing ordinance, but once complete, it is likely that the Tree Ordinance could be one of the next work programs. It would be realistic to expect this item back to the Commission by early summer. Chairperson Fond closed the Public Comment period. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON APRIL 1, 2003. 2. FINAL MAP ACCEPTANCE; IMP 2003-0052: TTM 2002-0022 (Tract 2439, Parcel Map AT 02-0236, Parcel Map AT 02-0237) TRAFFIC WAY INDUSTRIAL CONDOMINIUMS. Commissioner O'Keefe pulled Consent Calendar Item #2 for further discussion. MOTION: By Vice Chairperson Kelley and seconded by Commissioner Beraud to approve Consent Calendar Item #1. AYES: Commissioners Beraud, Porter, O'Keefe, Kelley and Chairperson Fonzi NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Jones (Not present at last meeting.) Motion passed 5:0 by a roll -call vote. Item #2: Commissioner O'Keefe stated that she had previously expressed her concern regarding the inadequate tree protection for this project. The owner eventually responded and put up the tree protection, but there was no arborist report. She indicated that it appears the tree has been impacted by the construction and asked if a yes vote on this item would preclude having an arborist look at the tree to determine if it has been impacted. Community Development Director Frace stated that this item is just the acceptance of the Condominium Map, which is the interior subdivision of the lease spaces. The building final and tree are separate from the Condominium Map. The applicant has been notified that an arborist must assess the condition of the tree and propose any necessary mitigation prior to completion of the project. MOTION: By Vice Chairperson Kelley and seconded by Commissioner Porter to approve Item #2 of the Consent Calendar. AYES: Commissioners Porter, O'Keefe, Jones, Beraud, Kelley and Chairperson Fonzi NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Motion passed 6:0 by a roll -call vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS 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 1 -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. Planning Services Manager Steve McHarris provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT Dan Stewart, 597 12th Street, Paso Robles, civil engineer for applicant, gave a brief history of the project and the application process. He indicated that the City Engineer's condition to put in two separate driveways to both houses is not possible and for this reason they could never complete the project. It is his position that the previous parcel map may have expired but not the variance. Mr. Stewart answered questions of the Commission. Chairperson Fonzi closed the Public Comment period. Commissioner O'Keefe stated what happened was unfortunate, but feels the variance should not have been approved the first time. She feels staff has done an excellent job with the current report, and that this request ignores the updated General Plan. Chairperson Fonzi indicated that in her opinion it defied common sense to not allow this project to go through, as there are two large lots and two legal houses already in place. Vice Chairperson Kelley agreed with Chairperson Fonzi and felt the project fits with the neighborhood. Commissioner Jones also agreed with Chairperson Fonzi and feels this situation needs to be rectified. Commissioner Beraud commended staff for upholding the General Plan. MOTION: By Commissioner Beraud and seconded by Commissioner O'Keefe to deny Appeal 2003-0001. AYES: Commissioners Beraud and O'Keefe NOES: Commissioners Jones, Porter, Kelley and Chairperson Fonzi ABSTAIN: None Motion failed 4:2 by a roll -call vote. Chairperson Fonzi felt more information is needed, especially the conditions from the original staff report which was approved by the Commission in 1998, and information from the applicant regarding his appeals and the driveway condition. MOTION: By Chairperson Fonzi and seconded by Commissioner Jones to send this item back to staff for further study and then brought back to the Commission for review. AYES: Commissioners Jones, Porter, Kelley and Chairperson Fonzi NOES: Commissioners Beraud and O'Keefe ABSTAIN: None Motion passed 4:2 by a roll -call vote. Director Frace asked for clarification on what the Commission wants staff to bring forward. Chairperson Fonzi asked for the following: 1) Conditions of Approval originally included when the variance was approved in 1998, 2) applicant's information regarding coming back to staff and trying to work with them, 3) any approvals or denials that may have come from staff regarding the driveways, and 4) the Minutes of the original Commission meeting of 1998. 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 Planning Services Manager Steve McHarris provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT Mary Chastain, 3855 Highway 41, Templeton, Co -Chair Atascadero Main Street Economic Restructuring Committee, stated that the Main Street organization agrees with the community vision statement. She informed the Commission that in the last few years, downtown property owners have approached Main Street and asked for assistance in filling the vacancies in their buildings. She reviewed the proposed approach and timeline for allowing currently non - permitted uses in the downtown. Ms. Chastain answered questions of the Commission. Bob Wilkins, 6405 El Camino Real, Atascadero Main Street Board of Directors and member of the Design Committee, urged the Commission to accept the proposed amendment. He indicated that Main Street wants to fill the vacancies downtown and at the same time encourage a store - like frontage. Mr. Wilkins answered questions of the Commission. Barbara Combs, 6280 Palma, Co -Chair Atascadero Main Street Design Committee, felt that Main Street has done a good job of emphasizing retail in the downtown. She spoke about dual- purpose usages to encourage life in the downtown. Ms. Combs answered questions of the Commission. Eric Greening commended the Design Committee and stated he would trust them to maintain the downtown vision. He liked the Main Street proposal and asked the following questions: 1) what would be the process if there are disagreements at the staff level, 2) who will fill vacancies on the appearance review committee and should there be a sunset clause, and 3) what would happen if a non -conforming use is approved, becomes successful and wants to stay in the downtown. Tony Ranoletti, 5735 El Camino Real, owner of Virginia Plaza, gave a brief history of the Plaza. He stated that the implementation of restricted usage has hurt their occupancy rate and there are now vacancies, which hurt the other retailers in the Plaza as well as cash flow. He recommended a multiple use status without a hearing process. Mr. Ranoletti answered questions of the Commission. Bob Wilkins responded to several issues raised during Public Comment. Mary Chastain responded to issues raised during the Public Comment period. Chairperson Fonzi closed the Public Comment period. Commissioner Beraud expressed her concern that if the proposed uses are permitted without a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), the downtown is stuck with that business. A CUP allows for a timeline, however she feels the timeline is too long at this time and asked if that time period and 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. Planning Services Manager Steve McHarris provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT Mary Chastain, 3855 Highway 41, Templeton, Co -Chair Atascadero Main Street Economic Restructuring Committee, stated that the Main Street organization agrees with the community vision statement. She informed the Commission that in the last few years, downtown property owners have approached Main Street and asked for assistance in filling the vacancies in their buildings. She reviewed the proposed approach and timeline for allowing currently non - permitted uses in the downtown. Ms. Chastain answered questions of the Commission. Bob Wilkins, 6405 El Camino Real, Atascadero Main Street Board of Directors and member of the Design Committee, urged the Commission to accept the proposed amendment. He indicated that Main Street wants to fill the vacancies downtown and at the same time encourage a store - like frontage. Mr. Wilkins answered questions of the Commission. Barbara Combs, 6280 Palma, Co -Chair Atascadero Main Street Design Committee, felt that Main Street has done a good job of emphasizing retail in the downtown. She spoke about dual- purpose usages to encourage life in the downtown. Ms. Combs answered questions of the Commission. Eric Greening commended the Design Committee and stated he would trust them to maintain the downtown vision. He liked the Main Street proposal and asked the following questions: 1) what would be the process if there are disagreements at the staff level, 2) who will fill vacancies on the appearance review committee and should there be a sunset clause, and 3) what would happen if a non -conforming use is approved, becomes successful and wants to stay in the downtown. Tony Ranoletti, 5735 El Camino Real, owner of Virginia Plaza, gave a brief history of the Plaza. He stated that the implementation of restricted usage has hurt their occupancy rate and there are now vacancies, which hurt the other retailers in the Plaza as well as cash flow. He recommended a multiple use status without a hearing process. Mr. Ranoletti answered questions of the Commission. Bob Wilkins responded to several issues raised during Public Comment. Mary Chastain responded to issues raised during the Public Comment period. Chairperson Fonzi closed the Public Comment period. Commissioner Beraud expressed her concern that if the proposed uses are permitted without a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), the downtown is stuck with that business. A CUP allows for a timeline, however she feels the timeline is too long at this time and asked if that time period and the cost of a CUP could be reduced to attract more businesses into the downtown. She was also concerned that there is no mechanism for enforcement of the requirements set by the appearance review committee. Vice -Chairperson Kelley felt there is an obligation to stay with the original restrictions especially for those who are now doing business in the downtown. He would like to keep the current ordinance in place and send this to staff to address the issue of interim guidelines with a time limit for non -retail uses and at the same time making it easier for preferred uses to come into the downtown. Commissioner O'Keefe stated she didn't see a problem with mixed use in the downtown, but is concerned with dead space. She feels the CUP process is too long and too expensive. She could support allowing more mixed uses without a CUP process with the assurance that the Main Street organization is not going to submit to pressure because they are anxious to have someone fill a vacant space. Commissioner Porter indicated that in his opinion, the businesses within the Main Street district have spoken and want the mixed use. Commissioner Jones agreed with Commissioner Porter. He also feels that the CUP process is too long and too expensive and if there are to be good uses in the downtown, there should be a different process. He is in favor of the Main Street appearance review. Director Frace indicated that the staff recommendation is for no use permit for the permitted uses with appearance review delegated to Main Street and feels this is the best way to expedite the process and still have enough control to guarantee a quality product. Chairperson Fonzi likes the proposal as it encourages businesses to go to the Main Street organization first, creating a more positive atmosphere. She is concerned with the "Approve" and "Decline" wording in the Main Street document and asked if there were a way to codify this so if declined there would be assurance of review by the City. Commissioner O'Keefe suggested the Main Street organization could look at the language and modify the form as needed. MOTION: By Commissioner Jones and seconded by Vice Chairperson Kelley to 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 as recommended by staff subject to findings and conditions. AYES: Commissioners Jones, Porter, O'Keefe, Kelley and Chairperson Fonzi NOES: Commissioner Beraud ABSTAIN: None Motion passed 5:1 by a Voll -call vote. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS & REPORTS — None COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORTS Community Development Director Frace referred to a memo given to the Commission and asked for feedback on the CUP for Mike Fredericks mini -storage project and the proposed change to the architectural treatment. There was Commission discussion and consensus for approval of the proposed changes. Director Frace announced a special joint meeting and study session of the City Council and Planning Commission scheduled for May 7th at 7:00 p.m. Affordable and workforce housing and the inclusionary ordinance will be discussed; he encouraged all Commission members to attend. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Fonzi adjourned the meeting at 9:06 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on May 6, 2003. MEETING RECORDED AND MINUTES PREPARED BY: Grace Pucci, Recording Secretary \\Cityhall\CDvlpmnt\— PC Minutes\PC Minutes 03\PC Minutes. 04-15-03.gp.doc ITEM NUMBER: DATE: e Community Development Staff Report Tree Removal Permit TRP 2003-0035 (8380 Alta Vista Ave: Reninger) �d81.11 KIN 1� 2 Request to remove thirteen (13) native oak trees, one of which is in excess of 24"dbh, in conjunction with the development of an 3,485 square -foot new single-family home located at 8380 Alta Vista Ave. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends: The Planning Commission adopt Resolution PC 2003-0049 to approve the request to remove thirteen (13) native oak trees subject to the guidelines and mitigation required by the Atascadero Native Tree Ordinance. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Applicant: James Reninger, 5805 Ridgeway Ct, Atascadero, CA 93422 2. Representative: James Reninger, 5805 Ridgeway Ct, Atascadero, CA 93422 3. Certified Arborist: Chip Tamagni, Arbor Tree Surgery, 802 Paso Robles St, Paso Robles, CA 93446 3. Project Address: 8380 Alta Vista Ave, Atascadero, CA 93422; APN 031-114-002 1/28/2003 TRP 2003-0035 8380 Alta Vista.PC-SR.doc ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 05/06/03 ANALYSIS: The applicant has proposed a 3,485 square foot single-family residence on the project site. The project site is comprised of moderate slopes up to 35 percent. The project will gain access from Alta Vista Ave. The majority of the parcel contains heavy to moderate concentrations of oak tree clusters. The proposed building site is located as cbse to Alta Vista Ave as possible and provides the only practical building location. Additionally, the proposed septic system has been located to avoid disturbance of the existing oak tree clusters. NAVARRETE AVE. �1 „" Proposed Residence - #21 -� M1 1. ' C n 41r 1/28/2003 1 // . ` JL ista.PC-SR.doc ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 05/06/03 The City of Atascadero's Tree Ordinance requires that a certified arborist prepare an accurate and appropriate Tree Protection Plan, and that appropriate mitigation for native tree removals be implemented as a condition of the project. The applicant submitted a Tree Protection Report and staff reviewed and approved the recommendations, which have been incorporated into the site plan. The arborist's report findings conclude that the native oak trees to be removed are obstructing proposed improvements. Staff is recommending that removal of the trees be mitigated by payment of $1,650 into the City's Tree Replacement Fund. In addition, staff will require that the applicant implement the tree protection measures that are recommended in the report prior to the issuance of the building pernlit. The proposed mitigation is shown in the following table. 1/28/2003 TRP 2003-0035 8380 Alta Vista.PGSR.doc Evergreen Native Trees (inches) Total 160 -inches Mitigation Requirement Tree Fund Payment: $ 1,333.33 FINDINGS: ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 05/06/03 Deciduous Native Trees (inches) dbh notes 1 57 -inches Live Oak 2 14 -inches Live Oak 3 15 -inches Live Oak 4 16 -inches Live Oak 5 7 -inches Live Oak 6 16 -inches Live Oak 7 10 -inches Live Oak 8 9 -inches Live Oak 9 7 -inches Live Oak 10 9 -inches Live Oak Total 160 -inches Mitigation Requirement Tree Fund Payment: $ 1,333.33 FINDINGS: ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 05/06/03 Deciduous Native Trees (inches) Tree Fund Payment: $ 316.67 Totals 179 -inches $ 1,650.00 Pursuant to the Tree Ordinance (Ordinance No. 214), "decisions on native tree removals of 24 -inch dbh-size or larger shall be made by the Planning Commission." In considering any tree removal request, at least one of the below stated following findings must be made. Staff has identified findings #5 as appropriate for the application request. 1) The tree is dead, diseased or injured beyond reclamation, as certified by a tree condition report from an Arborist; 2) The tree is crowded by other healthier native trees, thinning (removal) would promote healthier growth in the trees to remain, as certified by a tree condition report from an Arborist; 3) The tree is interfering with existing utilities and/or structures, as certified by a report from the Site Planner; 4) The tree is inhibiting sunlight needed for existing and/or proposed active or passive solar heating or cooling, as certified by a report from the Site Planner; 5) The tree is obstructing proposed improvements that cannot be reasonably designed to avoid the need for tree removal, as certified by a report from the Site Planner and determined by the Community Development Department based on the following actors: • Early consultation with the City; • Consideration of practical design alternatives; • Provision of cost comparisons (from applicant) for practical design alternatives; 1/28/2003 TRP 2003-0035 8380 Alta Vista.PGSR.doc dbh notes 1 10 -inches Blue Oak 2 5 -inches Blue Oak 3 4 -inches Blue Oak 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total 19 -inches Tree Fund Payment: $ 316.67 Totals 179 -inches $ 1,650.00 Pursuant to the Tree Ordinance (Ordinance No. 214), "decisions on native tree removals of 24 -inch dbh-size or larger shall be made by the Planning Commission." In considering any tree removal request, at least one of the below stated following findings must be made. Staff has identified findings #5 as appropriate for the application request. 1) The tree is dead, diseased or injured beyond reclamation, as certified by a tree condition report from an Arborist; 2) The tree is crowded by other healthier native trees, thinning (removal) would promote healthier growth in the trees to remain, as certified by a tree condition report from an Arborist; 3) The tree is interfering with existing utilities and/or structures, as certified by a report from the Site Planner; 4) The tree is inhibiting sunlight needed for existing and/or proposed active or passive solar heating or cooling, as certified by a report from the Site Planner; 5) The tree is obstructing proposed improvements that cannot be reasonably designed to avoid the need for tree removal, as certified by a report from the Site Planner and determined by the Community Development Department based on the following actors: • Early consultation with the City; • Consideration of practical design alternatives; • Provision of cost comparisons (from applicant) for practical design alternatives; 1/28/2003 TRP 2003-0035 8380 Alta Vista.PGSR.doc ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 05/06/03 • If saving tree eliminates all reasonable uses of the property; or • If saving the tree requires the removal of more desirable trees. CONCLUSION: The applicant has a submitted tree protection plan with findings from a Certified Arborist. The tree have been determined to be obstructing proposed improvements that cannot be reasonably designed to avoid the need for tree removal, as certified by the Community Development Department, and therefore meets the required findings for removal. PREPARED BY: Kelly Davis, Assistant Planner ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Location Map Attachment 2: Site Plan Attachment 3: Draft Resolution PC 2003-0049 1/28/2003 TRP 2003-0035 8380 Alta Vista.PGSR.doc ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 05/06/03 Attachment 1 Location Map 8380 Alta Vista Ave. 1/28/2003 TRP 2003-0035 8380 Alta Vista.PC-SR.doc ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 05/06/03 Attachment 2 Site Plan NAVARRETE AVE w ti _ �.._ ._._,��� �. ��, �•a� VICHTY MAP OW4t wP'W�R �� WtR+Nfler M� 1 x _ ' �� .MD K 4RY •Nr r r _ few ,.gip l .1 ,W �w of � / t '' gr'�IfO iLNl7w•1 »� / �• wewrr � f 1 � V" MWMVA� <J •, � MK�..M�VML YI•W � J SID=O� 1/28/2003 TRP 2003-0035 8380 Alta Vista.PC-SR.doc ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 05/06/03 Attachment 3 Draft Resolution PC 2003-0049 DRAFT RESOLUTION PC 2003-0049 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE REMOVAL OF THIRTEEN NATIVE OAK TREES LOCATED AT 8380 ALTA VISTA AVE. (TRP 2003-0035/RENINGER) WHEREAS, an application for a Tree Removal Permit has been received from, James Reninger, 5805 Ridgeway Ct, Atascadero, CA 93422, to allow the removal of thirteen native oak trees located at 8380 Alta Vista Ave; and, WHEREAS, the proposed project is located within the Single Family Residential Y land use designation of the City of Atascadero's General Plan Land Use Diagram; and, WHEREAS, the proposed project is located in the Residential Single Family -Y zoning district; and, WHEREAS; the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Tree Removal application on May 6, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in the Rotunda Room of City Hall located at 6500 Palma Avenue and considered testimony and reports from staff, the applicants, and the public; and, NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission takes the following actions: SECTION 1. Findings for Approval of Tree Removal Permit. The Planning Commission finds as follows: 2. The tree is obstructing proposed improvements that cannot be reasonably designed to avoid the need for tree removal, as certified by a report from the Site Planner and determined by the Community Development Department based on the following factors: a. Early consultation with the City; b. Consideration of practical design alternatives; c. Provision of cost comparisons (from applicant) for practical design alternatives; d. If saving tree eliminates all reasonable uses of the property; or 1/28/2003 TRP 2003-0035 8380 Alta Vista.PC-SR.doc ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 05/06/03 e. If saving the tree requires the removal of more desirable trees. SECTION 2. Approval. The Planning Commission hereby approves Tree Removal Permit 2003-0049 subject to the following Conditions and Exhibits: Exhibit A: Conditions Of Approval Exhibit B: Tree Protection Plan 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 1/28/2003 TRP 2003-0035 8380 Alta Vista.PGSR.doc ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 05/06/03 Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval Tree Removal - TRP 2003-0035 Conditions of Approval Timing Responsibility 57 -inches Live Oak TRP 2001-0012 14 -inches Live Oak /Monitoring 15 -inches Live Oak 4 PR: Prior to Removal BL: Business License PS: Planning Services 7 -inches Live Oak 6 BP: Building Permit BS: Building Services 10 -inches Live Oak 8 TO: Temporary Occupancy FD: Fire Department 7 -inches Live Oak 10 FO: Final Occupancy PD: Police Department CE: City Engineer WW: Wastewater CA: City Attorney Planning Services 3. The applicant shall pay $1,650 into the tree fund as FO PS mitigation for the tree removal as shown in the attached table. 4. No tree removals shall be allowed prior to the issuance BP PS of an approval letter. Tree Mitigation Table 1 Evergreen Native Trees (inches) Total 160 -inches Mitigation Requirement Tree Fund Payment: $ 1,333.33 Deciduous Native Trees (inches) dbh notes 1 10 -inches Blue Oak 2 5 -inches Blue Oak 3 4 -inches Blue Oak 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total 19 -inches Tree Fund Payment: $ 316.67 Totals 179 -inches $ 1,650.00 1/28/2003 TRP 2003-0035 8380 Alta Vista.PC-SR.doc dbh notes 1 57 -inches Live Oak 2 14 -inches Live Oak 3 15 -inches Live Oak 4 16 -inches Live Oak 5 7 -inches Live Oak 6 16 -inches Live Oak 7 10 -inches Live Oak 8 9 -inches Live Oak 9 7 -inches Live Oak 10 9 -inches Live Oak Total 160 -inches Mitigation Requirement Tree Fund Payment: $ 1,333.33 Deciduous Native Trees (inches) dbh notes 1 10 -inches Blue Oak 2 5 -inches Blue Oak 3 4 -inches Blue Oak 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total 19 -inches Tree Fund Payment: $ 316.67 Totals 179 -inches $ 1,650.00 1/28/2003 TRP 2003-0035 8380 Alta Vista.PC-SR.doc ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 05/06/03 Exhibit 13: Tree Protection Plan Tree Removal - TRP 2003-0035 'A 602 PALO ROI ES STREET PASO POW$. CAAOORNl4 93446 805/239 1239 FAX 805/239.3712 ARBOR q'GL: `tEa Sum" tv APR - 7 2003 Date 2,16.'03 COMMU ITY ME[OPIIBII To Mr And Mrs James Reninger From Stcvcn ti Alvarez, Arbor Tree Surgery Re: 633!t ti Atascadero Q390 Alta ysYa This report is in regards to a proposed new home located at634S-A1evmtec-Aw., Atascadero, Califorrna All Oak Trees potentially impacted by this new home are identified on the plans provided. Several trees were not identified on the original plans but were added w-ith the approximate stale. Diameters and species were confirmed "lot changed to reflect the true assessment Trees that proposed to be removal are flagged with fluorescent orange tape and those to be saved arc flagged with yellow tali. On the plans, the trees are numbered which correspond to the accompanying spreadsheet The trees are either identified as 'removod" or given specific nutigalion measures to protect them. Tout removal inches is 179 The first column identifies tree number. Tire second column names species The third column lists diameter and number of stems (ie. 2x . 2 stem) The fourth column identifies those trees where removal is suggested (the tree em is either within the proposed residence or in the drnYway) The fifth column lists wcionyms for mitigation measures described below • F - Fencing Construction fencing should be placed at the edge of the drip -line where possible. Cenain trees may require some fence Itne adjustment due to their proximity to the driveway or home • NF - No Fill No excess fill or excavated matcnal should be place within the dnp- line of these trees Heavy equipment should not be operated there Thew areae should not be used as storage for construction materials or equipment • RP - Root Pruning All trenching operations within the dnp-ltnes of these tnxs should be hand dug All roots encountered larger than one inch to diameter should be clean cut with sharp hand tools. The trench should be buried as soon as possible Thi-. applies to all foundation trenches, reLurung wall footings, dm%ewav excavation, and utility trenches. . P - Pruning. Certain trees were identified that may interfere with framing operations. Thew trees should be pruned by a trained arborist and have no more than 2 S': of the canopy removed 1/28/2003 TRP 2003-0035 8380 Alta Vista.PC-SR.doc ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 05/06/03 Trac a 13 is an g- diameter Bluc Oak Troc It was scheduled for removgl on the plans, however, this tree should not interfere with conqn'uction operations and it should be saved Although tree 13 is in line with the proposed deck• it has a strong Iesn to the East Any d,gWng within 10" of this tree should be completed by hand Any roots larger than one inch in diameter shall be clean cut with sharp hand toots Alteration in deck Post placement may be necessary to avoid the tree. Tree protection fencing shall be placed 10' out from the tree during cortstruction Tree w25 is already dead from what appears to be nrtuml cauves It'the mitigation measures described herr are followed, no significant long-term impacts should occur io the (Yak Trecs Sincerely. Steven G Alvan7, Certified AArt*n�st 00511 Chip Tamagni, Certified Arborist sf WE 6436•A 1/28/2003 TRP 2003-0035 8380 Alta Vista.PC-SR.doc _Jr ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 5-6-03 Planning Commission Staff Report Conditional Use Permit 2003-0091 Residential Second Unit 8875 Carmelita Ave (Galbreath) SUBJECT: The proposed project, Conditional Use Permit (CUP 2003-0091), is a request to establish a residential second unit at 8875 Carmelita Ave, consistent with the performance standards set forth in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends: 1. The Planning Commission adopt Resolution 2003-0047, to approving Conditional Use Permit 2003-0091 to establish a residential second unit at 8875 Carmelita Ave Road in the RSF-Y zone, subject to the findings, conditions, and exhibits as attached. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Applicant: Sean and Claudia Galbreath, 8875 Carmelita Ave, Atascadero, CA 93422 2. Project Address: 8875 Carmelita Ave, Atascadero, CA 93422 (APN 031-281-030) 3. General Plan Designation: Single Family Residential (SFR Y) 4. Zoning District: Residential Single Family (RSF-Y) 5. Existing Use: Single family residence 6. Environmental Status: Categorical Exemption CEQA section 15303 Class 3(a). ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 5-6-03 STAFF ANALYSIS: Project Description: The proposed Conditional Use Permit consists of a proposal to establish a residential second unit on an existing residential lot subject to the performance standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. The site, located at 8875 Carmelita Ave is a 1.05 -acre net parcel and is surrounded on each side by single-family residential lots of the RSF-Y zoning designation, ranging in size from approximately 1.25 -acres to .5 -acres. A 2,177 square foot single-family residence currently exists on the site. General Plan and Zoning: The General Plan designation for the subject parcel is Single Family Residential, with a corresponding Zoning District of Residential Single Family (RSF-Y). The zoning ordinance, consistent with the General Plan, conditionally allow second units within this zone, subject to the following performance standards: 1. Lot size: the net lot size shall be 1 -acre minimum The subject parcel is 1.05 -acres net 2. Sewer: the second unit shall be connected to City sewer The residential second unit, as proposed will be connected to City sewer 3. Water: the second unit shall be served by a public water supply The project proposal includes a connection to public water as served by the Atascadero Mutual Water Company and will be required to obtain a will serve letter prior to permit issuance. 4. Floor Area: the maximum floor area shall be 800 square feet The proposed second unit measures 800 square feet of living area in addition to a 360 square foot garage and front porch. 5. Parking: one covered parking space shall be provided The second unit is designed with an attached one -car garage. 6. Setbacks: the same setback requirements of a primary residential dwelling shall apply to secondary units ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 5-6-03 The second unit has been designed to be within the established setbacks for the RSF-Y zone. As proposed, the second unit will be located to the rear of the existing residence and is located 9 feet from the side property line and 15 feet from the rear property line. 7. Appearance: the secondary unit shall be architecturally compatible with the primary residential dwelling Through the building permit review process, staff will ensure that the second unit is compatible with the primary residence in terms of materials and architectural features. 8. Grading: site grading and native tree removals shall be minimized to the greatest extent possible No grading or tree removals are anticipated for this project. The site is characterized by little to no slope and no native trees exist on-site. 9. Neighborhood Character: the unit shall be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood In order to preserve the single-family nature of the neighborhood, staff is recommending landscaping along the rear and side property line as a condition of approval. Because the site is at least 1 -acre, ample area exists for the addition of the second unit and no additional visual impacts are anticipated. Environmental Determination: The project has been determined to qualify for a Class 3 Categorically Exemption under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA section 15303; Class 3; New construction or conversion of small structures). Findings: There are five standard findings required for the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. It is staffs opinion that all of the following findings can be made for the proposed project, subject to the conditions and exhibits as attached. 1. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan; and, 2. The proposed use satisfies all applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance; and, 3. The establishment, and subsequent operation or conduct of the use will not, because of the circumstances and conditions applied in this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the general public or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and the use; and, 4. The proposed use will not be inconsistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood or contrary to its orderly development; and, ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 5-6-03 S. The proposed use will not generate a volume of traffic beyond the safe capacity of all roads providing access to the project, either existing or to be improved in conjunction with the project, or beyond the normal traffic volume of the surrounding neighborhood that would result from full development in accordance with the Land Use Element. CONCLUSION: The proposed residential second unit is consistent with the standards established in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The project has been conditioned to minimize any impacts to the surrounding neighborhood and, therefore, staff concludes that the proposed second unit is consistent with the surrounding residential neighborhood. ALTERNATIVES: 1. The Planning Commission may add to or modify project conditions for the proposed project and/or recommend approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit. 2. The Planning Commission may recommend denial of the proposed Conditional Use Permit. 3. The Planning Commission may continue the hearing and refer the project back to staff for further analysis. Direction should be given to staff and the applicant on required additional information. PREPARED BY: Kelly Davis, Assistant Planner ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Location map Attachment 2: Draft Planning Commission Resolution 2003-0047 Attachment 1: Location Map: 8875 Carmelita Ave Subject Property: 8875 Carmelita Ave ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 5-6-03 ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 5-6-03 Attachment 2: Draft Planning Commission Resolution 2003-0047 DRAFT RESOLUTION PC 2003-0047 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A RESIDENTIAL SECOND UNIT IN THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT AT 8875 CARMELITA AVE. (APN 031-281-030) (CUP 2003-0091; Galbreath; 8875 Carmelita Ave.) WHEREAS, An application has been received from Sean and Claudia Galbreath, 8875 Carmelita Ave, Atascadero, CA (Owner and Applicant) to consider Conditional lue Permit 2003-0091 to establish a residential second unit at 8875 Carmelita Ave; and, WHEREAS, the proposed project is located within the SFR Y (Single Family Residential 1 -acre) land use designation of the City of Atascadero's General Plan Land Use Diagram; and, WHEREAS, the proposed project is located within the Residential Single Family (RSF-Y) zoning district where a residential second unit is subject to performance standards and the approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and, WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) section 15303 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, Class 3(a), has been prepared; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed Conditional Use Permit application on May 6, 2003 at 7:00 p.m., and considered testimony and reports from staff, the applicants, and the public; and, NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission takes the following actions: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM CEQA 1. The proposed project has been determined to be exemption from CEQA based on a Class 3(a) exemption pertaining to the new construction or conversion of small structures. Planning Commission Resolution 2003-0047 May 6, 2003 Page 2 of 7 SECTION 2. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. The Planning Commission finds as follows: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan; and, 2. The proposed project satisfies all applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance; and, 3. The establishment, and subsequent operation or conduct of the use will not, because of the circumstances and conditions applied in this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the use; and, 4. The proposed project will not be inconsistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood or contrary to its orderly development; and, 5. The proposed project will not generate a volume of traffic beyond the safe capacity of all roads providing access to the project, either existing or to be improved in conjunction with the project, or beyond the normal traffic volume of the surrounding neighborhood that would result from the full development in accordance with the Land Use Element. SECTION 3. APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. The Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit 2003-0091 to establish a residential second unit at 8875 Carmelita Ave. (APN 031-281-030), consistent with the following Exhibits: EXHIBIT A: Conditions of Approval EXHIBIT B: Site Plan EXHIBIT C: Floor Plan and Elevations EXHIBIT D: Materials Board Planning Commission Resolution 2003-0047 May 6, 2003 Page 3 of 7 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 Planning Commission Resolution 2003-0047 May 6, 2003 Page 4 of 7 EXHIBIT A: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CUP 2003-0091 Condition of Approval Timing Responsibility CUP 2003-0091 /Monitoring PS: Planning Services BL: Business License BS: Building Services BP: Building Permit FD: Fire Department TO: Temporary Occupancy PD: Police Department F0: Final Occupancy CE: City Engineer WW: Wastewater CA: City Attorney Standard Conditions 1. The approval of this use permit shall become final and effective On Going PS for the purposes of issuing building permits, provided the required conditions of approval have been satisfied, fourteen (14) days following the Planning Commission approval unless prior to the time, an appeal to the decision is filed as set forth in Section 9-1.111(b) of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Approval of this Conditional Use Permit shall be valid for twelve On Going PS (12) months after its effective date. At the end of the period, he approval shall expire and become null and void unless the applicant has received a building permit or applied for an extension of entitlement. 3. The granting of this Conditional Use Permit shall apply to APN On Going PS 031-182-030, regardless of owner. Project Conditions On Going PS 4. Lot Size: The net lot area shall be 1 -acre minimum. BP PS 5. Sewer: The second unit shall be connected to City sewer. BP PS 6. Water: The second unit shall be served by Atascadero Mutual Water Company. A will serveletter shall be submitted prior to permit issuance. BP PS 7. Meters: Separate utilities meters may be installed for second units. BP PS 8. Floor area: The maximum residential floor area shall be 800 square feet. BP PS 9. Parking: A minimum of one covered parking space shall be provided. Planning Commission Resolution 2003-0047 May 6, 2003 Page 5 of 7 Condition of Approval Timing Responsibility CUP 2003-0091 /Monitoring PS: Planning Services BL: Business License BS: Building Services BP: Building Permit FD: Fire Department TO: Temporary Occupancy PD: Police Department F0: Final Occupancy CE: City Engineer WW: Wastewater CA: City Attorney BP PS 10. Setbacks: The same setback requirements of a primary residential dwelling shall apply to secondary units. BP PS 11. Appearance: The secondary unit shall be architecturally compatible with the primary residential dwelling. Exterior color and material samples shall be submitted for review and approval prior to permit issuance. BP PS 12. Grading: Site grading and native tree removals shall be minimized to the greatest extent possible. BP PS 13. The unit shall be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Trees shall be planted 20 feet on center with irrigation along the south and east property lines to buffer the secondary unit from neighboring properties. Planning Commission Resolution 2003-0047 May 6, 2003 Page 6 of 7 EXHIBIT B: Site Plan CUP 2003-0091 CARMELITA 140 �^ 44`E . � I IIII �„'.� • / I 1111 t�7vww I / I ! 111 ism 1111 t e,r , 111 III tr jul ,ul , jul w ul j JI 1 uI- 1 4!� str.a I I iI 14 I ! II III' I 1 ! I• I �3 04 I � IIII 1 I ill I It I ? CITY OF Ilji I , III y I 11 1 r 1 - 1111 - - - - - - I 10 SQ.FT. • 11 1 ' �Mo I I 140.11i_._, N7d 3W 33W SITE PLAN SCALE 1'=20'0• Planning Commission Resolution 2003-0047 May 6, 2003 Page 7 of 7 EXHIBIT C: Floor Plan and Elevations CUP 2003-0091 r7aowa�r�t � I � �Ny Planning Commission Resolution 2003-0047 May 6, 2003 Page 8 of 7 EXHIBIT D: Materials Board CUP 2003-0091 F0 FEB 1 2 2003 - I ,rt�TY �cVEi-hVMFN� HAR-04-LANK r, MATERIALS FOR NEW AasA-M4P i'CNJAI_ coreP ,SECONDARY DWELLING TO unNCLcnoor:Nc : MATCH THOSE OF EXISTING PAI N=W000 PRIMARY DWELLING MAL, NGS/TFL M