Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-13-2014 PC MinutesSAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 13, 2014 CALL TO ORDER /PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, John Fowler, Ronald Malak, William Riggs, Vice - Chairperson Michael Multari, and Chairperson John Larson Absent: Commr. Fowler Staff: Community Development Deputy Director Doug Davidson, Assistant Planner Erik Berg- Johansen, Assistant Planner Joanna Kaufman, Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, and Recording Secretary Diane Clement ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. MINUTES: Minutes of July 23, 2014, were approved as presented. Minutes of July 30, 2014, were approved as amended. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 625 Cuesta Street. AP -PC 105 -14: Appeal of the Director's decision to uphold a Notice to Correct a Code Violation regarding front -yard parking; R -1 -zone; Joan Byrnes, applicant and appellant. (Erik Berg- Johansen) Assistant Planner Berg- Johansen presented the staff report, recommending adoption of the Draft Resolution denying the appeal and supporting the Director's decision to uphold the citation. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Appellant Joan Byrnes stated that her mother and stepfather never violated City rules and her stepfather did not cut the curb; but instead, used metal vehicle ramps. She stated that the property had not been used for parking for about four years but, recently, a disgruntled neighbor began giving the student residents on the street a hard time about parking too many cars. She added that the students who live two houses down received multiple citations for too many cars so one of them asked her if he could park on the pad on her property. She stated she made stipulations about no disruption or noise that might affect the neighbors. She noted that he put the boards down as a ramp Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 2014 Page 2 which she did not know was against regulations. She added that there is compliance with the 72 -hour parking rule. She asked for copies of the regulations and stated she knows there are grandfather clauses for parking on the pad. Genevieve Czech, SLO, stated that she wanted to address the bigger picture of a commitment to the environment and rationality. She noted that each home on Cuesta, Stanford, and Princeton is allowed to park four cars. She added that students comprise almost a majority in the neighborhood, there is a bus stop at the bottom of Cuesta Drive, and students get free passes to ride. She maintained that the neighborhood roads are no longer safe for children who used to bike and skate, due to the number of cars. Michelle Tasseff, SLO, supported denial of the appeal. She noted that an added driveway would be dangerously close to an adjacent driveway and that allowing the number of parked cars to increase would allow an increase in the number of residents. She added that approving the appeal would allow others to request exceptions. Anthony Haddad, SLO, supported granting the appeal. He noted that the appellant's mother uses a walker and the appellant has to move a car to have space to help her mother in and out of her car and that allowing a car to park on the pad would remove one car from parking on the street. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Draze stated that the sidewalk is not designed for the weight of cars, and that an additional curb cut to serve the concrete pad would be impractical and not allowed by the City. He added that the appellant's property has adequate parking and that there are strict regulations about parking for non - residents. In response to a question from Commr. Larson about possible alternatives to make the pad a legal parking space, Community Development Deputy Director Davidson stated that staff looked at alternatives but only one curb cut per property is allowed unless street frontage is over 70 feet, and beyond that, the property exceeds the allowable paved area with the pad. He noted that the issue is not the existence of the pad, but the use of the pad for parking purposes. Commr. Draze noted that, since the City does not mark residential street parking, he is sure that someone has parked on the street blocking vehicle access to the pad. Commr. Multari asked if this street is in a residential parking district. Assistant Planner Berg- Johansen responded that it is not. Commr. Malak stated he did a site survey and saw signs with parking hours. He asked how students who are not residents could use this street as parking for using the bus to Cal Poly if the streets are monitored. Commr. Larson also asked about parking restrictions on this street. Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 2014 Page 3 Applicant Byrnes stated that no parking is allowed from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. without a parking permit and that each residence is allowed two street parking permits. She asked if she can allow a neighboring resident to park on her permitted driveway; then can a resident pay for a parking permit and give it to someone else in the neighborhood. Commr. Malak stated that you get two per household and can give them to whomever you wish. Commr. Riggs stated that Cuesta is in an overnight parking district and that the City is running an experimental program funneling overnight parking into parking structures downtown. Commr. Multari stated that he has observed throughout the City the use of 2" x 4" boards put down to drive over curbs in order to park boats or RVs on properties. He noted that the boards are put away when not in use. He stated that it is unfortunate that the City has a policy to pursue violations when there is no complaint from a neighbor. He added that, despite this, he would vote to deny the appeal. Commr. Riggs stated that this appeal brings up another much bigger issue about the parking policies of Cal Poly in relation to the City. He predicted that the City will see much more push on this type of issue because he does not see the University doing much to incentivize people getting out of their cars. Commr. Larson stated the particular zoning code that applies to this appeal was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission recently but that this use would probably have been a violation with the prior parking regulations, too. He added that this relatively new proactive parking enforcement was designed to catch problems before they become severe although it was understood that gray -area issues would come up. Commr. Dandekar stated that Donald Shoup, a parking expert at UCLA, pointed out that this kind of parking occurs across the country as a source of extra income. She noted that residents allow and charge for parking on their lawns, for football games at the University of Michigan but that this is not currently authorized in the City and the Commission hears from neighbors that this diminishes their quality of life. She stated that, if this appeal is approved, then there is a need to change the regulations. Commr. Malak stated it is a question of fairness and noted that the pad is 30 years old but the parking regulations were set up in 2013. Now, this family has to appeal because there is no alternative. He added that there is minimal traffic here. Commr. Riggs stated that the property could eventually sell which could result in an excessive number of cars. Commr. Draze stated that this kind of parking has not been allowed for many years, not just since 2013. He also noted that proactive enforcement is a City Council policy and to not deny the appeal would be saying the Commission does not support the Council. Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 2014 Page 4 Commr. Draze offered a motion denying the appeal that was seconded by Commr. Riggs. See wording below, following the discussion. Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere recommended striking "subject to the following conditions:" since no conditions are necessary with a denial of the appeal. Deputy Director Davidson stated that each residence has the right to four parking spots on a property plus two permits for street parking. Commr. Dandekar stated that this is very generous and the parking for this property should conform to the law. Commr. Larson stated that City- initiated enforcement was discussed and approved by the Commission as being good for the City with the realization that there would be appeals. He stated that he likes to strictly interpret whether staff did the right thing and here the staff action has been clear. He noted that this is a gray area and that there are strong arguments on both sides. Commr. Multari stated he will support the motion but that, when the new parking standards and proactive enforcement was approved, he thought they were not good ideas. He added that he would be more sympathetic if it was a boat or RV being stored and used only periodically. Commr. Dandekar stated she is sympathetic to the appellant but will support the motion. She noted that cities are prone to having excessive parking which results in an overall degradation of the fagades and fronts of homes where student occupancy is high. Commr. Larson stated that we do want to have good neighborhoods and not creeping degradation. He noted that even though staff has done everything correctly and he cannot find any legal argument to oppose the motion, this one does not feel right. He stated that he wished another solution could be identified and he has difficulty voting for the motion. There were no further comments made from the Commission. On motion by Commr. Draze, seconded by Commr. Riggs, to adopt the Draft Resolution denying the appeal and supporting the Director's decision to uphold the citation with the deletion of the condition that "the subiect parkinq pad may not be used for the parking and /or storage of any vehicle, trailer, or other item of similar size. " AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Malak, Multari, and Riggs NOES: Commr. Larson RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Fowler The motion passed on a 5:1 vote Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 2014 Page 5 2. 2701 Augusta. U 97 -14; Review of conversion of an existing guest house to a secondary dwelling unit exceeding 450 square feet, including Class 3 categorical exemption from CEQA for conversion of existing small structures; R -1 zone; Eric and Helen Zeeb, applicant. (Erik Berg- Johansen) Commr. Riggs recused himself for this item. Assistant Planner Berg- Johansen presented the staff report, recommending adoption of the Draft Resolution allowing a guest house conversion to a secondary dwelling unit that exceeds 450 square feet, subject to conditions which he outlined. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Bill Isamen, Isamen Design, Inc., represented the applicant. In response to questions from Commr. Multari, he stated that the property was purchased with the understanding that this structure was a guest house and that the kitchen was removed to comply with City regulations. He added that, rather than immediately imposing a restriction limiting use of the second floor loft space to storage, it should be a condition of sale and, if the immediate restriction is imposed, he requests a reduction in fees. After consulting with the applicants, he stated that they bought it with that much square footage so restricting the loft use would not be their first choice. Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere stated that it would be complicated to write that kind of condition of sale because many legal factors would be at play. Vincent Crooks, SLO, who built the main house on this lot, stated he had no problem with use of the guest house as a secondary dwelling unit (SDU) and that there are no traffic issues. He noted that he would have a problem with the deed restriction for the loft. He added that he is the neighbor who has the most contact with this property. There were no further comments made from the public, COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Draze stated he did a site visit. He noted that he wants the important language in Finding #2 — Compliance with Size Limitation (from the Zoning Regulations) to be included in the Resolution findings. He noted that he was impressed that the proposed SDU almost cannot be seen behind the office structure on this very large lot. He added that there is plenty of parking and that all the structures are architecturally compatible. He stated that he would be satisfied if the loft is simply restricted to not being a sleeping area and that restricting it to storage only is overzealous. Commr. Larson stated that he interpreted Condition 2 of the Resolution to mean that if new owners wanted to use this property as a rental, they could rent either the second unit or the primary residence, but not both. He noted that the concern is that there might be an attempt to have a lot of people residing on this property if two units were allowed when it is not owner - occupied. Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 2014 Page 6 Commr. Malak wondered if it hurts the interest of the current owners to try to prevent this property from becoming a rental that would degrade the neighborhood in 15 -20 years. He stated it was a decision between now or the future. Commr. Draze responded to Commr. Malak's comment by stating that he tries to view decisions as being about uses, not personalities, so he is not dealing with the present owners or future ones, but instead the use of the structure as a secondary dwelling unit. Commr. Larson asked Commr. Multari if he thinks an amendment to the conditions is necessary to deal with the loft issue, or if Condition 2 would be sufficient. Condition 2 terminatesuse of the secondary dwelling unit if the primary house becomes a rental. Commr. Multari stated that he agrees with Commr. Draze about dealing with property uses. He noted that an illegal kitchen was bootlegged in and violated the intent of having the guest house. He stated that if there is not sentiment for the restricted use of the loft, then Condition 2 is closest to the intent of the code. Commr. Malak stated that he has a problem with depriving the current owners from using their own property as they wish by only looking at preventing a future problem. Commr. Multari stated that one of the primary functions and responsibilities of the Commission is to maintain the quality of life in R -1 zones but, at same time, the Commission has to consider that there is State law allowing secondary units under certain circumstances. He added that he is looking to the future and, while sympathetic toward the owners, the intent is that the SDU be kept small. He added that the owners are not going to live there forever so he is concerned that the Commission would be approving a duplex in an R -1 zone. He stated that it is better to have a restriction so that, if there are problems, there is something the City or residents can refer to. Commr. Malak stated that he wants a compromise. Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere stated that drafting something that would be triggered by a sale at a later date would be difficult and it is better to either add a restriction now or not at all. Commr. Multari agreed with the attorney. A motion was made by Commr. Draze to approve the Draft Resolution with the addition of language in Finding #2 on page PC2 -4 about strict compliance with size limitations, and creation of a new Condition 8 with language acceptable to the City Attorney. Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere suggested this wording: "shall record the deed restriction prohibiting a bedroom use on the second floor." This wording was accepted by Commr. Draze. Commr. Larson stated he is not sure Condition 8 is even necessary because the only way the SDU could be a rental is if a landowner lives in the primary residence which seems to take care of the concern. Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 2014 Page 7 Commr. Multari seconded the motion. Commr. Multari stated that the reason he is uncomfortable is because the living room could become a bedroom and the upstairs could be used as a living room but, given it is next to a kitchen, he thinks he is OK with the motion. Commr. Dandekar supported the two additions to the Resolution and noted that this is a difficult issue but that the project is well designed. She added that the concern with the two cases tonight is a need to be consistent about how the rules are applied. She stated that she thinks this is a workable compromise but appreciates Commr. Multari's concern and that the next case might not be as compelling or aesthetically pleasing. Commr. Draze stated he appreciates Commr. Multari's ability to look at these issues analytically and he did not think of the possibility that use of the loft as a bedroom could negatively impact neighbors in the future. He added that he did not agree that the two items at this meeting were similar because this applicant is just requesting a larger building size than is normally allowed. Commr. Malak stated that there is nothing in the Resolution that stops the main residence from being rented out. He asked if modification of the second floor would have to go through the planning process. Commr. Multari replied that there had already been an illegal kitchen. He stated that he is concerned about renting to students and, if caught by a neighbor's complaint, a deed restriction would mean the City would have better enforcement authority. He added that future buyers will see the deed restrictions and will not have an excuse. Commr. Malak stated if the language was strengthened, he would support the motion. Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere suggested wording stating that a bedroom is a room with a closet. One other issue: this application is trying to change the characterization of the unit itself by adding a kitchen. Commr. Dandekar stated that the only difference between a guest house and a SDU is the kitchen and layout. She added that the Commission wants to reduce the size. Commr. Malak suggested changing Condition 8 to state that the second floor could never be used as a rental. Commr. Draze responded that is difficult to do. There were no further comments made from the Commission. On motion by Commr. Draze, seconded by Commr. Multari, to adopt the Draft Resolution allowing a guest house conversion to a seconds dwelling unit that exceeds 450 square feet with additional language in Finding 2 stating that strict compliance with the regulations would require significant structural modifications and the new Condition Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 2014 Page 8 8, with language acceptable to the City Attorney, stating that a deed restriction will be recorded prohibiting a bedroom use on the second floor. AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Larson, Malak, and Multari NOES: None RECUSED: Commr. Riggs ABSENT: Commr. Fowler The motion passed on a 5:0 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 3. Staff a. Agenda Forecast by Deputy Director Davidson • August 27, 2014: early start at 5 p.m. 1) Rockview project 2) LUCE Chapters7 and 11, and the Airport Overlay • September 10, 2014: LUCE • September 11, 2014: LUCE - special meeting • September 17, 2014: LUCE - special meeting • September 18, 2014, LUCE special meeting, if needed. NJ. Standard Conditions and Key Performance Indicators presented by Deputy Director Davidson and Assistant Planner Kaufman 4. Commission There were no comments from the Commission. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Diane Clement Recording Secretary Approved by the Planning Commission on September 10, 2014. Lauri4 Thomas Administrative Assistant III