Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_2003-06-03_AgendaPacketCITY OFATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Regular Meeting June 3, 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 MAY 20, 2003. 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).) 2. APPEAL 2003-0001 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 a Description: reduction of the minimum lot size for a parcel within the RSF-Y zoning district. The General Plan Project Land Use Designation is Single Family Residential. The site is zoned Residential Single Family -Y, a Description: 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 the Environmental environment. Determination Goal HOS 3: Policy 3.1-3. ZONE CHANGE 2003-0051: Applicant: City of Atascadero Project Title: Zone Change 2003-0051: Zoning Code Text Amendment to remove the Conditional Use Permit requirement for Residential Second Units in the Residential Single Family -Y Zone District Project Zone Change: Citywide: Single Family Residential (SFR) and Residential Single Location: Family -Y (RSF-Y) zoning districts. Project The project consists of a proposed text amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance Description: Section 9-3.153 Conditional Uses, to remove Residential Second Units as mandated by the State of California, and add Residential Second Units to Section 9-3. 152 Allowed Uses, in the RSF-Y zoning districts consistent with General Plan Goal HOS 3: Policy 3.1-3. General Plan Designation: Single Family Residential (SFR). Zoning District: Residential Single Family (RSF-Y) Proposed The proposed project has been analyzed adequately in the 2002 General Plan EIR Environmental pursuant to applicable standards and impacts have been avoided or mitigated Determination: pursuant to that EIR. 4. ZONE CHANGE 2003-0052: Applicant: City of Atascadero Project Title: Zone Change 2003-0052: Zoning Code Text Amendment to amend the land use definition of "Auto Dealers" Project Zone Change: Citywide: All General Plan Designations and Zone Districts Location: Project The project consists of a proposed text amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance Description• Section 9-3.701 Land Use Definitions, to add "wholesale" operations. Proposed The proposed project has been analyzed adequately in the 2002 General Plan EIR pursuant to Environmental applicable standards and impacts have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that EIR. Determination: COMMISSIONER COMMENTS & REPORTS ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be June 17, 2003 at City Hall in the 4t" 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 at/or prior to this public hearing. \\CityhaIIkCDvlpmnt\— PC Agendas\PC 2003\PC Agenda. 06-03-03.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: 06/03/03 CITY OFATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting May 20, 2003 — 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fonzi called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and Commissioner O'Keefe 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, Associate Planner Glenn Rider, Assistant Planner Kelly Davis and Recording Secretary Grace Pucci. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There was Commission consensus to approve the agenda. PUBLIC COMMENT Jodi Smith, EOC Homeless Services, 5411 El Camino Real, updated the Commission on public workshops scheduled for May 28th and June 11th. The issue of an overnight shelter will be the subject of both workshops. Ms. Smith submitted a flyer on the workshops to the Commission. (Exhibit A) Chairperson Fonzi closed the Public Comment period. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON MAY 6, 2003. 2. TIME EXTENSION (TEX 2003-0009) REQUEST FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 2000-0001: 9123 SAN RAFAEL ROAD, WORTHAN/STEWART. 3. TIME EXTENSION (TEX 2003-0008) REQUEST FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25-89: 5808 CAPISTRANO AVENUE, HOTEL PARK GROUP/GLEN LEWIS. Commissioner O'Keefe pulled Consent Calendar Items #2 and 3. MOTION: By Vice Chairperson Kelley and seconded by Commissioner Jones to approve Consent Calendar Item #1. AYES: Commissioners Jones, Beraud, Porter, O'Keefe, Kelley and Chairperson Fonzi NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Motion passed 6:0 by a roll -call vote. Item #2: Commissioner O'Keefe referred to finding No. 1 regarding substantial site work being uncompleted, and asked what the circumstances were in this case. Associate Planner Glenn Rider explained that due to financial reasons, the applicant was unable to complete the project, however, this will be the last one-year time extension allowed. Associate Planner Rider answered additional questions of Commissioner O'Keefe. Commissioner Bentz joined the Planning Commission at 7:10 p.m. MOTION: By Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner O'Keefe to approve Consent Calendar Item #2. AYES: Commissioners Jones, O'Keefe, Beraud, Porter, Bentz, Kelley and Chairperson Fonzi NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Motion passed 7.0 by a roll -call vote. Item #3: Commissioner O'Keefe questioned if this would be the final extension for this project. Associate Planner Rider indicated there would be no further extensions; this is the final one-year extension. MOTION: By Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner O'Keefe to approve Consent Calendar Item #3. AYES: Commissioners Jones, O'Keefe, Porter, Bentz, Beraud, Kelley and Chairperson Fonzi NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Motion passed 7.0 by a roll -call vote. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORTS 4. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 2003-0036: 2135 SAN FERNANDO RD. Request to remove sixty-two (62) native oak trees, ten of which are in excess of 24 "dbh, in conjunction with the development of an 4,000 square foot new single-family home located at 2135 San Fernando Rd. (APN 049-281-012) Staff recommends: The Planning Commission make finding #5 that the project cannot be reasonably redesigned to avoid the need to remove 62 native oak trees and adopt Resolution PC 2003-0056 to approve the request to remove the sixty-two native oak trees subject to the guidelines and mitigation required by the Atascadero Native Tree Ordinance, and subject to project conditions. Assistant Planner Kelly Davis provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT Mark Davis, project engineer, answered questions raised by the Commission concerning grading, retaining walls, the drainage swale and placement of the driveway. Dan Phillips, applicant, answered questions of the Commission. Chip Tamagni, Arbor Tree Surgery, answered questions of the Commission. Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, expressed concern that there was no paper trail to demonstrate an alternate design for the driveway had been considered along with cost comparisons. Mr. Greening also inquired whether the Fire Department might require more tree removals at some time in the future. Steve Alvarez, Arborist, responded to the issue of the Fire Department requiring thinning of trees on the property. He made the point that it is not a thinning perspective with the Fire Department, but rather a perimeter border that is defensible. Ken Wilson, land surveyor for project, discussed the process the applicant had used to determine the placement of the driveway and stated that it doesn't make sense to submit an alternative design if it is not feasible. Eric Greening commented that looking at the curve in the street, there might not be a good place to put the driveway that would avoid potential problems, and expressed concern regarding site distance to and from the road. Chairperson Fonzi closed the Public Comment period. Commissioner O'Keefe stated that she did not see how the Commission could make the finding that the driveway could not be reasonably designed to avoid the need for tree removal due to the fact that only one plan had been submitted. Vice Chairperson Kelley felt the surveyor had a great deal of experience in this type of project and that there is basically no other way to get up the hill, and he supports the tree removal request. Commissioner Porter agreed with Vice Chairperson Kelley and would rather leave the decision on alternative designs to the experts. Commissioner Beraud indicated that only difficult lots remain to be developed in Atascadero. She feels the Commission must follow the General Plan guidelines and that the applicant should be expected to give design alternatives. However, she is willing to support the tree removals because of the attached conditions of approval. Commissioner Bentz felt the applicant's representatives provided adequate credentials to determine the best design for the driveway. He supports the tree removal request. Commissioner Jones stated he also supports the tree removals. He knows the experts the applicant has hired and feels they do an excellent job. MOTION: By Vice Chairperson Kelley and seconded by Commissioner Jones to make finding #5 that the project cannot be reasonably redesigned to avoid the need to remove 62 native oak trees and to adopt Resolution PC 2003-0056 to approve the request to remove the sixty-two native oak trees subject to the guidelines and mitigation required by the Atascadero Native Tree Ordinance, and subject to project conditions. AYES: Commissioners Jones, Bentz, Beraud, Porter, Kelley and Chairperson Fonzi NOES: Commissioner O'Keefe ABSTAIN: None Motion passed 6:1 by a roll -call vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. ZONE CHANGE 2002-0034, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-0078, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2002-0024. Applicant: Rancho De Paraiso LLC, 6250 San Gabriel Road, Atascadero, CA 93422 Project Title: Zone Change 2002-0034 / Tentative Tract Map 2002-0024 / Conditional Use Permit 2002-0078: A Two -Lot Planned Development Subdivision Project Location: 6205 San Gabriel Road, Atascadero, CA 93422 (San Luis Obispo County) APN 054-192-001 & 054-111-051, portion of 054- 181-006. Project The project is a proposed Planned Development subdivision of an existing vacant Description: 8.12 -acre legal lot of record into two parcels of 1.09 and 7.03 acres each. The Planned Development overlay zone would allow one parcel to exist below the minimum lot size in order to correct a physical lot division by a public roadway and provide an environmentally superior building site. General Plan Designation: Residential Estates (RE) Zoning District: Residential Suburban (RS) 2.5-10 acre minimum lot size based on performance standards. Proposed Based on the initial study prepared for the project, a Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental is proposed. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is available for public Determination review from 4/23/03 through 5/20/03 at 6500 Palma Avenue, Community Development Department, Room 104, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Staff The Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. PC 2003-0052-55, certifying the Recommendation proposed environmental determination, and approving Zone Change 2002-0034, Tentative Tract Map 2002-0024, and Conditional Use Permit 2003-0078, a request to subdivide one 8.12 -acre parcel into two parcels of 1.09 and 7.03 acres each with a Planned Development Overlay and within the Residential Suburban zone, based on findings and subject to conditions. Associate Planner Glenn Rider provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT Ken Wilson, surveyor for the applicant, answered questions of the Commission. Richard Di Benedetto spoke on behalf of four homeowners on San Gabriel expressing their concerns with the proposed subdivision in a prepared statement. (Exhibit B) Sue Baca, neighbor, stated her concern that this development was represented a certain way by the real estate agents representing the properties, however, now that they are in their homes, those representations are being changed and she questions where the next change will come from. Jim Baca presented his concern that in looking at the CC&R's for the neighborhood, it is his understanding the oak preservation goes all the way across, and that lots 1 and 2 are in one piece and are already part of the preservation. He questioned why this was not part of the original project and why lots 1 and 2 are now separate lots. Chairperson Fonzi closed the Public Comment period. Chairperson Fonzi asked staff to address concerns raised during the Public Comment period. Community Development Director Warren Frace explained why this lot could be subdivided, why it was not combined with the other lot, minimum lot sizes, and the issue of two APN numbers. Commissioner O'Keefe stated she understands the neighbors concerns, however she feels staff has come up with the best possible solution for these lots. Chairperson Fonzi expressed concern about setbacks on proposed parcel 1 and reopened the Public Comment period to allow a representative of the homeowners to address this issue. PUBLIC COMMENT Richard Di Benedetto spoke for the homeowners and explained that on the northwest corner of proposed lot 1 there is a home on five acres where the owner intends to build a swimming pool. He understands that the proposed home on parcel 1 will be constructed very close to that area and this would overlook the pool. He stated that siting of the house would depend on the size of the proposed house and the location of the oak tree. Mr. Di Benedetto asked why proposed parcel 1 is not being designated as the open space land. Chairperson Fonzi closed the Public Comment period. Commissioner Jones stated that he understands the concerns expressed by the neighbors and feels staff has explained to his satisfaction how this situation came about. MOTION: By Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Porter to adopt Resolution No. PC 2003-0055 recommending the City Council certify the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 2003-0015 prepared for Zone Change 2002-0031, Tentative Tract Map 2002-0015; and Conditional Use Permit 2002- 0078, and adopt Resolution No. PC 2003-0052, recommending that the City Council introduce an ordinance for first reading to approve Zone Change 2002- 0034; and amend the City's Zoning Map to add a PD 16 overlay district to the project area, and adopt Resolution No. PC 2003-0053 and approve the Conditional Use Permit 2002-0078, a Master Plan of development for the project site consistent with PD -16 and would include the easement for the tree as it exists on Parcel No. 1 and defining the easement as encompassing just the drip line, and adopt Resolution No. PC 2003-0054 recommending the City Council approve Tentative Tract map 2002-0024, a request to subdivide an 8.12 -acre parcel into two parcels; one at 1.09 acres, and one at 7.09 acres, all acreages gross, based on findings and subject to conditions. AYES: Commissioners Jones, Porter, O'Keefe, Beraud, Bentz, Kelley and Chairperson Fonzi NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Motion passed 7.0 by a roll -call vote. 6. TPM 2003-0037: 3955 MONTEREY RD Applicant: John Kuden, PO Box 3605, San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 805-541-6257 Project Title: Tentative Parcel Map 2003-0037 Project Location: 3955 Monterey Rd, Atascadero, CA 93422, San Luis Obispo County APN 049-221-049 Project A proposed subdivision of an existing 3.85 -acre lot into two individual parcels of Description: 1.67 and 2.18 gross acres. The site is currently developed with a single-family residence which will be confined to one lot to allow the new lot to be developed with a new single-family residence. The parcels are slight to moderately sloped and contain several native oak trees. The newly created parcel averages slopes of 16%. The property will be served by City sewer and water is available from Atascadero Mutual Water Company. General Plan Designation: Single Family Residential (SFR). Zoning District: Residential Single Famil -Z (RSF-Z) Proposed Based on the initial study prepared for the project, a Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental is proposed. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is available for public Determination review from 4/22/03 through 5/11/03 at 6500 Palma Avenue, Community Development Department, Room 104, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Staff The Planning Commission adopt Resolution PC 2003-0048, certifying the proposed Recommendation Mitigated Negative Declaration 2003-0014 and approving Tentative Parcel Map 2003-0037, a request to subdivide one lot totaling 3.85 acres into two parcels of 1.67 and 2.18 -acres gross, based on findings and subject to conditions. Assistant Planner Kelly Davis provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT Pamela Jardini, applicant's representative, answered questions raised by the Commission regarding the sewer line. Chairperson Fond closed the Public Comment period. MOTION: By Vice Chairperson Kelley and seconded by Commissioner Jones to adopt Resolution PC 2003-0048, certifying the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 2003-0014 and approving Tentative Parcel Map 2003-0037, a request to subdivide one lot totaling 3.85 acres into two parcels of 1.67 and 2.18 -acres gross, based on findings and subject to conditions. AYES: Commissioners Jones, O'Keefe, Beraud, Porter, Bentz, Kelley and Chairperson Fonzi NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Motion passed 7.0 by a roll -call vote. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS & REPORTS Chairperson Fonzi took a straw vote of those planning to attend the affordable housing symposium on May 30th: four Commissioners will be attending. Commissioner Beraud referred back to the PD 16 and asked if the applicant will be required to come back with the native tree removals. Director Frace stated the tree removals will require an approval when the house on the hill comes back before the Commission. Community Development Director Frace updated the Commission on the inclusionary housing joint session and the follow up meeting to be held on June 4, 2003. Mr. Frace asked Commissioners to inform staff early if they will be gone during the summer, as there are many projects scheduled to come before the Commission. He also informed the Commission that the City Council would be receiving a presentation from LAFCO on the Eagle Ranch sphere of influence amendment. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Fonzi adjourned the meeting at 9:16 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on June 3, 2003. MEETING RECORDED AND MINUTES PREPARED BY: Grace Pucci, Recording Secretary The following exhibits are available for review in the Community Development Department: Exhibit A — Jodi Smith, EOC Homeless Services — Workshop flyer Exhibit B — Richard Di Benedetto — Letter from neighbors \\Cityhall\CDvlpmnt\— PC Minutes\PC Minutes 03\PC Minutes 05-20-03.gp.doc Planning Commission Staff R Public Hearing ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 6/03/03 ort 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 bts 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. Appellant: Walter Togni, 6605 Santa Ynez Avenue, Atascadero, CA 93422, Phone: (805) 466-6097 2. Representative: Walter Togni, 6605 Santa Ynez Avenue, Atascadero, CA 93422, Phone: (805) 466-6097 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) ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 6/03/03 7. Existing Use: Developed with two single family residences 8. Environmental Status: Exempt (Appeal only) 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. ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 6/03/03 DISCUSSION: 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. Per the Subdivision Map Act, an approved tentative map must be finaled 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. On April 15, 2003, the City Attorney provided a legal 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. At the public hearing, the Planning Commission requested additional information regarding the TPM expiration, 12/15/98 Planning Commission meeting minutes, and correspondence related to requested right-of-way improvements (addressed within the staff report). 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: 2 DATE: 6/03/03 PARM *W AT MV wy o oW:,n v two. ertxx c of ArASG4Dcxo 'MOKa PW 4 AWS 4 so IMG arra carr "M 4F OKOMW 1 oda. art oiomrtas sumo2 be "OVA '.:+f: - _ "1a^:•�I •moi • � � .,.�-.. aYii4/LRGI1 M O L•Ada ,I General Plan & Zoning Code Consistency: 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. ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 6/03/03 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. It is the opinion of staff that the appellant'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- (under 1 -acre) lots; the project site already contains two homes that would be on separate lots; and the properties could be sold separately. At the April 15, 2003 public hearing, the appellant added a request to eliminate the City Engineer's previous requirements to remove an existing retaining wall and driveway from the Sombrilla Avenue right-of-way and realignment of driveways to access each home. The appellant stated that this request was not a condition of map approval and could not be incorporated into the project for physical and economic reasons. The appellant also noted that the right-of-way issue delayed him from being able to final the tentative map. 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. d) Contrary to previous City Engineering requests, the current City Engineer finds no issue with the pre-existing improvements within the right-of-way. e) The project record indicates that there was no resolution to the request for reconsideration of the above-mentioned right-of-way issues. Additional Information Requested by the Planning Commission At the April 15, 2003 public hearing, the Planning Commission requested the following information: 1. TPM expiration: The Subdivision Map Act 66452.6 states: 'An approved tentative map shall expire 24 months after its approval. " 2. Prior Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: Staff researched but was unable to locate the 12/15/98 Planning Commission Minutes for which this item was originally heard. 3. City Engineering correspondence related to the existing retaining wall and driveways: As stated above, alteration of the pre-existing improvements within the right-of-way are not required. ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 6/03/03 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 INFORMATIONAL ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 -- Location Maps (General Plan and Zoning) Attachment 2 -- Draft Resolution PC 2003-0044 Attachment 3 -- Applicant 1 Letter requesting r -o -w reconsideration, April 19, 1999 Attachment 4 -- City Memo responding to r -o -w reconsideration, April 21, 1999 Attachment 5 -- Plan Corrections noting r -o -w request, June, 16, 2000 Attachment 6 -- Letter of appeal from Walter Togni, January 27, 2003 Attachment 7 -- Letter of Determination (3rd request), January 16, 2003 Attachment 8 -- Letter of Determination (TPM 2001-0025), December 3, 2001 Attachment 9 -- TPM 98011, VAR 980 Staff Report with attachments Attachment 10 -- City Attorney Memo to Planning Commission, April 15, 2003 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 6/03/03 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: 2 DATE: 6/03/03 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, June 3, 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: 2 DATE: 6/03/03 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 Atascadero Planning Commission City Attorney Report ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 06/03/03 State Mandated Second Unit Ordinance L RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the attached proposed changes to the second unit rules in the City of Atascadero and forward a recommendation to the City Council that the changes be adopted as presented. H. DISCUSSION: Legal Report in Brief Unless a city has adopted an ordinance forbidding second units, a City is required to have at least one zone available for second unit construction. The new state mandated rule requires that where such second units are legal, the permit process for such second unit must be ministerial. Under the new state mandate for ministerial approval, the ability cf a City to regulate the architectural standards has not been removed. There is nothing in the new code that requires a City to remove architectural standards that it used to impose by way of a conditional use permit. Many Cities have attempted to impose residency requirements on the occupants. The only such requirement that has withstood legal challenge is a requirement that at least one of the units must be owner occupied. Such a requirement would comply with existing state law, but would be nullified if Assembly Bill 1160 is passed. It has been referred to two committees, already voted out of one recommending approval and probably soon to be out of the other committee. III. ALTERNATIVES: This issue must be addressed, and in the absence of formal changes, beginning July 1, 2003, State Law will require staff to treat second unit applications ministerially anyway. There is also the possibility of conditioning the second units on affordability. This power would also be removed by Assembly Bill 1160 if passed. June 3, 2003 Page 2 of 2 IV. FISCAL IMPACT: None identified at this time. V. ATTACHN ENI': Draft Proposed Ordinance Legal Report ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: Atascadero Planning Commission City Attorney Report Ordinance - Definition of Auto Dealer and Introduction of Permanent Ordinance to Same Effect RECOMMENDATIONS: Planning Commission: 1. Recommend to the City Council that it introduce for first reading, by title only, draft Ordinance amending the definition of "auto dealer" in the Atascadero Municipal Code. DISCUSSION: The City Council recently directed that the City Attorney complete a review of the Atascadero Municipal Code and make suggestions for changes. Most changes will be presented in a workshop fashion at a later date to be determined by the City Council, the City Manager and the City Attorney. In reviewing the code as it exists today, the City Attorney has found one portion of the zoning code that needs attention now, rather than later. That portion is the definition of auto dealers. In years past the citizens of Atascadero and the City Council of Atascadero sought to mitigate the negative impact of unsightly and ill kept used car lots. A process for a conditional use permit was established to require new lots to conform to certain site design and operational criteria. The City has had ongoing enforcement problems with used car lots that were in business prior to the establishment of the conditional use permit process. The City has obtained a conviction for violation of the Municipal Code in the operation of one such business. The cars were being stored in improper places, created blight and traffic hazards. The prosecution was as successful as prosecutions can be, a conviction obtained and a fine paid. However this has not prevented the problem from re occurring. It is a continuing nuisance in some cases. Staff has specific information, not necessary to be disclosed in this report for legal purposes, that at least one such business intends to relocate, and fully intends not to comply with the provisions of the City's Municipal Code on the theory that wholesale used car lots are not governed. This argument has dubious legal merit, but it is also easily ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: remedied. It is not practical for the staff to effectively police these activities, and the health of the citizens is adversely affected by all of the impacts previously mentioned. The small fines that a court may legally impose do not serve as sufficient deterrent to the illegal activity that affects the citizens. Staff therefore recommended that the City Council may adopt an urgency ordinance specifically including wholesale operations in the definition of auto dealers and therefore certainly requiring them to comply with the conditional use permit process. Urgency ordinances must pass by a 4/5 vote to be effective. They become immediately effective, but are valid for only a limited period of time (up to 10 months). The permanent ordinance will be back before this council well before the urgency ordinance sunsets. The City Council adopted such an ordinance and it has a lifetime of 4 to 10 months. Urgency ordinances may be presented to a City Council without prior Planning Commission Review. Permanent ordinances may not. Therefore, this ordinance is brought before this commission for recommendation. FISCAL IMPACT: None has been identified. ALTERNATIVES: The City Council is not required to adopt this ordinance ATTACHMENTS: 1. Urgency Ordinance ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: DRAFT URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO PERTAINING TO THE DEFINITION OF AUTO DEALER PREAMBLE. Purpose and Intent The City Council finds that the conduct of auto dealers operating without a conditional use permit has created a public nuisance in the City of Atascadero. Such sales create sign code violations, multiple municipal code violations and encourage the creation of blight. All of this activity adversely affects the health and welfare of the citizens of Atascadero. The City Council also finds that the adoption of this urgency ordinance and a permanent ordinance to the same effect will promote appropriately located commercial and industrial activities and preserve and strengthen the City's economic base. The City recognizes a compelling interest in preserving the safety of the community generally and providing a higher degree of protection for its citizens from the effects of such activities when not conducted in conformance with a conditional use permit. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain that sections of the Atascadero Municipal Code are added to read as follows: Section One: The definition of "Auto Dealers" in 9-3.701 is changed to read as follows: Auto Dealers (New and Used) and Supplies. Retail and wholesale trade establishments selling new and used automobiles and light trucks, motorcycles and mopeds. Also includes establishments selling new parts and accessories within a building for the above. Does not include establishments dealing exclusively in used parts. Includes automobile repair shops only when maintained by establishment engaged in the sale of vehicles on the same site. Does not include "service stations," which are separately defined. Section Two: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason deemed or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Atascadero hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or other portions might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional. The foregoing urgency ordinance was approved and adopted at a meeting of the ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: City Council held on , 2003, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO ATTEST: Marcia McClure Torgerson, City Clerk Jerry Clay Sr., Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Roy A. Hanley, City Attorney ITEM NUMBER: B - I DATE: DRAFT ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO PERTAINING TO THE DEFINITION OF AUTO DEALER PREAMBLE. Purpose and Intent The City Council finds that the conduct of auto dealers operating without a conditional use permit has created a public nuisance in the City of Atascadero. Such sales create sign code violations, multiple municipal code violations and encourage the creation of blight. All of this activity adversely affects the health and welfare of the citizens of Atascadero. The City Council also finds that the adoption of this urgency ordinance and a permanent ordinance to the same effect will promote appropriately located commercial and industrial activities and preserve and strengthen the City's economic base. The City recognizes a compelling interest in preserving the safety of the community generally and providing a higher degree of protection for its citizens from the effects of such activities when not conducted in conformance with a conditional use permit. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain that sections of the Atascadero Municipal Code are added to read as follows: Section One: The definition of "Auto Dealers" in 9-3.701 is changed to read as follows: Auto Dealers (New and Used) and Supplies. Retail and wholesale trade establishments selling new and used automobiles and light trucks, motorcycles and mopeds. Also includes establishments selling new parts and accessories within a building for the above. Does not include establishments dealing exclusively in used parts. Includes automobile repair shops only when maintained by establishment engaged in the sale of vehicles on the same site. Does not include "service stations," which are separately defined. Section Two: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason deemed or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Atascadero hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or other portions might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional. The foregoing urgency ordinance was approved and adopted at a meeting of the City Council held on , 2003, by the following vote: AYES: ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO ATTEST: Marcia McClure Torgerson, City Clerk Jerry Clay Sr, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Roy A. Hanley, City Attorney