HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/20/1991, 4 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY A REQUEST TO DELETE CONDITION # 6 OF APPROVED USE PERMIT # 1475 TO ALLOW A CAR SALES LOT ON THE WEST SIDE OF BROAD STREET NEAR ORCUTT ROAD (3249 BROAD STREET). �II�N�����I�IIIIIIIIII ����IU 'r'�/ (� MEETING GATE _
lijjj c� or Sm lues OBIspo
0090 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director; O
By: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner , ';
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission's action to deny a request to
delete Condition # 6 of approved Use Permit # 1475 to allow
a car sales lot on the west side of Broad Street near Orcutt
Road (3249 Broad Street) .
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution upholding the Planning Commission's action denying the
request to delete Condition # 6.
BACKGROUND
Situation/Previous Review
On July 10, 1991, the Planning Commission denied a request by
applicant/appellant Champ Massey, owner of the property at 3249 Broad
Street, to delete Condition # 6 of Use Permit # 1475 approved on April
25, 1990, to allow a car sales lot at the site. Condition # 6 required
the dedication of a storm drain maintenance and access easement over the
drainage channel at the rear of the site. Champ Massey submitted an
appeal of the Planning Commission's action to the City Clerk on July 19,
1991.
At the Planning Commission meeting, the commission discussed at length
the respective responsibilities of the city and property owner for
maintenance of the drainage channel, the width and configuration of the
drainage easement and the possibilities for modifying the easement in the
future with further development of the site.
With their action to deny the request to delete Condition # 6, the
commission directed that the terms included in the Public Works
Department memorandum prepared by Jerry Kenny, dated February 8, 1991,
regarding maintenance responsibilities be incorporated into the easement
agreement. The Commission deferred to the Public Works and Community
Development Directors to determine the precise width and configuration
of the easement, indicating that a narrower easement may be acceptable
over the culverted portions of the drainage way. Furthermore, the
Commission required that the easement be executed and a building permit
obtained to complete other required improvements, consistent with
previous approvals, within thirty (30) days or the use permit would be
revoked.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt the draft resolution upholding the appeal and approving the
request to delete Condition # 6 (Exhibit B) .
2. Continue the item with direction to staff and the applicant.
71i�Vi►III! AjjIjj11 city Of San LaIS OBIspO
WNGs COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
U 1475
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the draft resolution denying the appeal, upholding the Planning j
Commission's decision to deny the request to delete Condition # 6
(Exhibit A) .
Attached: Draft Resolutions
i
Draft 7-10-91 Planning Commission Minutes
Appeal to City Council
Planning Commission Staff Report
I
I
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I r
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. (1991 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION
TO DENY A REQUEST TO DELETE
CONDITION # 6 OF APPROVED USE PERMIT #1475
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3249 BROAD STREET
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after
consideration of public testimony, the applicant's request to
delete Condition # 6, Planning Commission's action, the appeal to
the City Council, and staff recommendations and reports thereon,
denies the appeal of the Planning Commission's action to deny the
request to delete Condition # 6 of approved Use Permit # 1475 based
on the following findings:
1. The easement requirement called for in Condition
# 6 of approved Use Permit # 1475 is a typical
condition of discretionary use permits and
consistent with Resolution # 5138 that implemented
the city's flood management policy which states
that "the city shall actively seek to obtain
easements and/or ownership for creek access,
maintenance and construction whenever possible and
appropriate.
2. The city's creek dedication policy stipulates that
the property owner shall "dedicate the natural
creek area within his property" as a condition of
approval of projects requiring planning
entitlements other than a building permit or a lot
line adjustment. The property owner's changes to
the site including paving, fencing, landscaping and
modifications to the drainage channel to establish
the automobile sales lot required both a Planning
Commission use permit and architectural review.
These changes constitute substantial improvements
to the site which would require easement dedication
as a condition of development approval.
y-3
3 . Approving the request to deny Condition # 6 of
approved Use Permit # 1475 would be a grant of
special privilege and set a precedent inconsistent
with current city policy.
SECTION 2 . Conditions. The approved Use Permit # 1475
is valid subject to all the original conditions contained in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5014-90. In addition, the
easement shall be executed and a building permit obtained to
complete other required improvements, consistent with previous
approvals, within thirty (30) days or the use permit will be
revoked.
On motion of
seconded by , and on the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day
of , 1991.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk /f
APPROVED:
A nistrative Officer
Att me
t
Communit D velopment Director
� 5�
EXHIBIT B
RESOLUTION NO. (1991 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY A REQUEST
TO DELETE CONDITION # 6 OF APPROVED USE PERMIT # 1475
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3249 BROAD STREET
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after
consideration of public testimony, the applicant's request to
delete Condition # 6, Planning Commission's action, the appeal to
the City Council, and staff recommendations and reports thereon,
upholds the appeal of the Planning Commission's action to deny the
request to delete Condition # 6 of approved Use Permit # 1475 based
on the following findings:
1. Approving the request to delete Condition # 6 of
approved Use Permit # 1475 will not adversely
affect the health, safety and welfare of persons
residing on the site or in the vicinity.
2. Approving the request to delete Condition # 6 of
approved Use Permit # 1475 will not be a grant of
special privilege and will not set a precedent
inconsistent with current city policy.
SECTION 2. Conditions. The approved Use Permit # 1475
is valid subject to all the original conditions except # 6
contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5014-90. In
addition, a building permit shall be obtained to complete other
required improvements, consistent with previous approvals, within
thirty (30) days or the use permit will be revoked.
On motion of
seconded by and on the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day
of , 1991.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
t A inistrative Officer
Ci or
Community Devbiopment Director
��7
Draft P.C. Minutes
July 10, 1991
2. Use Permit U 1475. Review of conditionally approved use permit allowing a car
sales lot; 3249 Broad Street; C-C-S zone; Charles Massey, applicant.
Pamela Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the
commission deny the request to delete condition #6 and revoke the use permit if all
conditions of use permit approval are not fully complied with within thirty days.
Wayne Peterson, City Engineer, explained the need for the easement and the
maintenance responsibilities of the applicant and city regarding the easement. He did
not feel there was a difference between a recorded agreement which runs with the land
or an easement. He indicated the city would not accept an agreement that is not tied or
recorded to the land.
Cindy Clemens, Assistant City Attorney, concurred with Wayne Peterson's explanation.
Chairman Hoffman declared the public hearing open.
Brent Wiese, Pults & Associates, representative for the applicant, indicated they have
worked with staff and the Architectural Review Commission to comply with use permit
conditions. He felt that a written statement could guarantee everything that an
easement would. He noted the present car lot use was temporary. He felt that the
appropriate time to request an easement would be when the site is further developed.
He indicated that at that time, the city could be very specific about the shape and size
of the easement, access to the easement, and the maintenance of the easement. He
noted that while the city would not assume any responsibility for the maintenance of the
portion of the easement where the channel has been culverted because it was installed
without city approval, the city agreed that it could remain in place with some minor
modifications. He noted his client would be happy to maintain the culvert and drainage
channel. He felt the only reason the city was still requiring the easement was because
of policy. He noted that if the commission felt the easement was required at this time,
he asked that staff be flexible in determining the size and shape of the easement. He
felt that language that described the shape and size of the easement could be more
defined.
Champ Massey, 844 Escuela, applicant, indicated the pipe was installed by a neighbor
during development of adjacent property. He noted there was a discrepancy on the
jargon on the recorded promise and the deed restrictive easement. He felt a recorded
agreement would be redundant in that the city already has full access to the property,
however, he would consent to a written agreement. He felt the culvert could be
removed and the area could be returned to its natural state. He felt the easement
wastes about 1/3 of his property. He indicated that when plans are developed for the
property, the area will be culverted underground and the area in question can be used
11
PC Minutes
July 10, 1991
Page 2
for parking. It was not his intention to build in that area, but he did not want to waste
that much land.
Keith Crowe, Engineering Development Associates, looked at the hydraulics of situation
and analyzed the pipe. He noted that concrete collars and trimmimg the pipe coming in
off the side will solve problems. He noted that hydraulically, the pipe met city standards
and would be acceptable as a private storm drain. While he was not familiar with the
date city standards changed, he felt that when the pipe was installed, corrugated metal
pipe was an acceptable material for a culvert not located within a road right-of-way. He
felt the main reason the pipe was being questioned because inspection was not done on
the pipe when it was installed. He felt the pipe has not shown any signs of failure since
it was installed. He felt the proposed easement take over the property was excessive.
He noted that if an easement is shown over the property, that area does become
available for development in virtually all cases. He pointed out that the pipe was not
intended to take traffic loads, but was adequate for the purposes it is serving. He was
confident that the culvert would hold up under parked vehicles. He felt a 12-foot
easement centered over the pipe area would be appropriate.
Dan Hall, 106 Fel Mar, adjacent property owner, supported applicant's use permit for a
car IOL He noted that a band has been playing in the applicant's building frequently on
Sundays and questioned whether this was allowed under his use permit. He agreed that
a time limit should be set for the applicant to complete work on the drainage. He was
concerned with the common property line he shares with the applicant and felt the use
permit should be monitored on a yearly basis to assure that conditions are being met.
Champ Massey indicated that none of Mr. Hall's tenants have complained about the
band rehearsals. He felt Mr. Hall's concern with noise should be addressed to the
Police Department and not the Planning Commission. .
In response to a question from Commr. Kourakis, Mr. Massey felt that since the pipe
was only 4-feet wide, an easement under the guise of access of more than 4-feet wide,
was excessive. He indicated that a recorded agreement would make approximately 36
feet of his property useless. He would prefer to remove the pipe and restore the creek
bed.
Wayne Peterson felt that removing the pipe would not solve the problem of the
easement as it would still be required to the top of creek bank. He sketched out how
the easement could be modified.
Mr. Massey indicated that if the city wanted the pipe to remain, he would install the
concrete sleeves. He proposed a statement authorizing the city to enter his property and
indicating he would maintain the pipe and the drainage area. He stated this agreement
�t- 9
PC Minutes
July 10, 1991
Page 3
would be signed and notarized, but he would not record it so his deed would not be
restricted.
Pamela Ricci reviewed the Architectural Review Commission's action on the project.
Mr. Massey indicated that when the property is developed, the easement issue will have
to be addressed again.
Wayne Peterson indicated that in order for the city to clear debris from the creek, an
easement is required. He felt that a 15-foot easement would be tight, but maintenance
could be done with a temporary easement.
Brett Cross, 1217 Mariner's Cove, asked if the culvert is removed and the site is brought
back to its natural state, will the easement still be required? He also asked if it would
be possible to word the easement to allow flexibility in the future to realign the
easement?
Wayne Peterson indicated that he would still recommend that an easement be required.
Cindy Clemens indicated that the easement could be amended in the future when the
new dimensions are known.
Champ Massey noted that the Planning Commission requirement calls for the city to
maintain the pipe, but the deed restriction calls for him to maintain it. If maintenance
needs to be done in the area, he suggested that he be billed for it.
Chairman Hoffman declared the public hearing closed.
Wayne Peterson clarified that the city would take responsibility for annual maintenance
to assure the creekway is open for drainage purposes, but would not be responsible for
maintenance of the culverted portion.
Commr. Schmidt supported the applicant's suggestion to remove the pipe. He felt the
city's intent should be as spelled out in Jerry Kenny's February 8th memo. He noted
that if future conditions change, reconsideration of the boundaries of the easement
would be in order. He felt the 30-day deadline should refer to doing all the paperwork
and applying for the permit, but not for complying with all conditions of the use permit.
Commr. Kourakis agreed with Commr. Schmidt. She was concerned that the applicant
may not fully understand what is involved in removing the pipe and may, in fact, require
a wider cut through his property. She supported reducing the size of the easement, with
the additional language provided by the City Engineer. She felt this easement would Vbe
less thm if the creek were restored. not
-f-/D
PC Minutes
July 10, 1991
Page 4
Terry Sanville suggested that the commission require that the easement be established
from the drainage way to the rear property; that the easement cover from top of bank to
top of bank on unculverted portion of the drainage way; that for the culverted portion of
the drainageway where a 4-foot culvert has been established, that a 15-foot easement be
created; and that for the intersecting pipe that currently exists, that a 10-foot easement
be created; and that the maintenance of the easement area be as established in Jerry
Kenny's memo of February 8, 1991, items 1 and 2, a and b.
Commr. Schmidt did not think the commission had to set sizes for the easement. He
felt the condition which provided for the easement to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director and Public Works Director was appropriate in order-to afford
flexibility in setting the size of the easement.
Commr. Williams felt a 36-foot easement was excessive.
Commr. Peterson moved to continue consideration of Use Permit U1475 and direct staff
to work out an easement with the property owner.
The motion dies for lack of a second.
Commr. Schmidt indicated that if the applicant removed the pipe, he would be free of
condition 3 which called for an inspection of the drainage channel culvert.
Commr. Kaileskint indicated that if the propertyis sold to someone for development,
they should be noticed at the sale, that an easement will be required. He felt this will
have no bearing on the value of the property.
Commr. Kourakis moved to deny the request to delete Condition 6 with direction to
resolve the conflict between the language in the easement and Jerry Kenny's memo of
February 8, 1991; leave the size of the easement open, but note a concern regarding the
need for a 36-foot wide easement over the culvert; and give the applicant 30 days to
complete the signing of the easement.
Commr. Schmidt seconded the motion.
Champ Massey noted that Jerry Kenny's May 3, 1991, memo stated that the city desires
that either the drain be removed and the channel restored or provide the easement. He
requested that a motion be made to remove the culvert. He noted that if the city still
has a problem with the easement, he felt it would be better to deny the use permit. He
indicated he would not support the easement as it demeaned his property.
The commission discussed the city's policy of requiring an easement for a drainage area.
PC Minutes
July 10, 1991
Page:5 -
.AYES: Kourakis, Schmidt, .Karleskint, Williams, Hoffman
NOES: Peterson
ABSENT: Gurnee .
The.motion passes.
cit
.q11j , y of San tuis OBISPO
MlGis
990 Palm Slreel/Post office Box 8100 • San Luls Obispo, CA 93403.8100
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL -
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I . Chapter
1 . 20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals
from the decision of T )d0nnina Gpnt,vl�ys;p„` rendered
ap
on 719 which decision consisted of the following ( i .e.
set forth factual situation and the grounds for submlttipg this appeal .
Use additional sheets as needed) :
Ex-Less; ve. ease.-ie-t -1-
rove- '!-� -Poe- so,.> V-A r-Ied.2 ,
L/s PP1M� 4 .
The undersign d discussed the decision being appealed from witli:
Oil
DATE 6 TIME APPEAL RECEIVED: Appellant:
RECEIVE ® �d--7Name1d
Tit
d
JUL 1 9 1991 N.
Repre entative
SAN u, CLERK
e SPO,CA �Z/y e,L, f t3 C/o-
Address
Phone
Original for City Clerk
/� Copy to City Attorney
Cal da d for: �0 I%9I Copy to City Administrative Officer
Copy t�e following department(s) :
City erk
MEETING DATE:
I,��� i�lllll�ll�'1iicity of San LUIS OBISpo 7-/0-9/
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TEM ?MBER:
BY: PK Pam Ricci, Associate Planner FILE.# U 1475
SUBJECT:
Review of a conditionally approved use permit allowing a car sales lot on the west
side of Broad Street near Orcutt Road.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Deny request to delete condition # 6. Revoke use permit if all conditions of use permit
approval are not fully complied with within 30 days.
BACKGROUND
Situation/Previous Review
The Planning Commission on April 25, 1990 approved a use permit to allow the car lot.
The car lot had been established without city approvals and has been the subject of
continuous enforcement action by the city in recent years.
Plans showing existing and proposed improvements for the car lot including landscaping and
grading were approved by the ARC on December 17, 1990, consistent with use permit
condition # 10. ARC approval stipulated that all required improvements were to be
installed by June 1, 1991. That deadline has obviously expired. A building permit for site
development consistent with use permit and ARC conditions would have been issued on
February 2, 1991, except that the applicant, Champ Massey, refused to sign the required
drainage easement.
A letter was received from the applicant's representative on April 30, 1991 requesting that
condition # 6 of use permit approval requiring the dedication of a storm drain maintenance
and access easement over the drainage channel be deleted. This review hearing has been
scheduled to consider the applicant's request for a condition change, as well as review the
status of the use permit.
Data Summary
Address: 3249 Broad Street
Applicant: Charles M. "Champ" Massey
Representative: Brent Wiese, Steve Pults & Associates
Zoning: C-S-S
General Plan: Service Commercial/Light Industrial
Environmental Status: Categorically exempt
Site Description
The site is composed of about 37,500 square feet which contains a pair of attached
structures totaling about 1200 square feet. The site has a single driveway access on Broad
Street and has been recently paved with asphalt for a car lot display area. The westerly
portion of the site slopes down to a drainage swale which has been partially culverted by
the applicant. About 1000 cubic yards of fill have been added over this culvert. There is
a 24" pepper tree on the site; no other significant vegetation is present.
U 1475
Page 2
EVALUATION
When the Planning Commission use permit was approved for the site, a number of
conditions were imposed to attempt to improve the appearance of the site and to insure
compatibility with surrounding properties. Conditions of approval included requirements
for a loading zone, downlighting, resolution of grading and drainage issues, landscaping
and frontage improvements. The applicant has not yet complied with use permit conditions.
This is because issuance of the building permit needed to authorize the work to satisfy
conditions has been delayed pending dedication of the drainage easement.
One of the principal concerns with unauthorized changes that have occurred at the site has
been the partial culverting and covering of a part of the drainage channel located on the
westerly part of the site. The Planning Commission discussed the culverting of the drainage
channel in detail. The commission considered requiring removal of the culvert and
restoring the drainage channel to its original condition. However, the commission in its
motion for use permit approval stipulated that the culvert could remain if culvert size and
compaction of the soil around it meet city standards. The motion made it clear that further
culverting of the channel would not be acceptable.
Engineering calculations and plans were submitted by the applicant and tentatively
approved by the city to allow the culvert to remain in place. However, since the culvert was
installed before city review and inspection, the city has indicated that it will not accept
maintenance responsibilities for the culverted sections of the drainage channel.
Applicant's Position
The applicant feels that the drainage easement requirement is not needed since the city has
stipulated that it will not be responsible for maintenance of the culvert. He feels that, with
or without the easement, city crews can access the drainage channel in an emergency. The
applicant maintains that the easement should be a condition of future permanent
development, not of the car lot which he views as a temporary use. Letters are attached
from both the applicant and his representative regarding their positions on the easement.
City Stafrs Position
Creek easements are a typical condition of discretionary use permits reviewed by the city
and are consistent with city policies. Resolution No. 5138 that implemented the city's flood
management policy includes the provision that:
"The City shall actively seek to obtain easements and/or ownership for creek access,
maintenance and construction whenever possible and appropriate."
Without the easement, the city does not have absolute right to enter the property. The city
generally attempts to obtain drainage easements at the earliest opportunity, rather than
postponing them to some unknown point in the future. While the city is not accepting the
culvert for city maintenance, it is accepting maintenance of the drainage channel beyond
the culvert.
U 1475
Page 3
Conclusion
The city has worked cooperatively with the applicant to resolve the on-going enforcement
problems at this site. The applicant has made an attempt to comply with city requirements
by going through the required use permit, architectural review and building permit processes
for establishment of the car lot use at the site. However, the city and the applicant are
currently at an impasse regarding the drainage easement issue.
Staff does not feel that the easement condition is an unusual one or provides an undue
hardship to the applicant. In fact, staff would be setting an unfavorable precedent by not
requiring the easement. Therefore, it is staffs opinion that the use permit should be
revoked and the use not allowed to continue at the site if the applicant fails to provide the
easement and satisfy other conditions of use permit approval.
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission may add, delete or modify conditions of approval, or may revoke
the use permit.
RECOMMENDATION
Deny request to delete condition # 6. Revoke use permit if all conditions of use permit
approval are not fully complied with within 30 days.
Attached: Vicinity Map
Planning Commission Use Permit Conditions
Planning Commission minutes of 4-25-90
ARC approval letter dated 12-19-90
Letter from Champ Massey dated 5-27-91
Memo from Jerry Kenny dated 5-3-91
Letter form Brent Wiese dated 4-30-91
Memo from Dave Romero dated 4-12-91
Memo from Jerry Kenny dated 2-8-91
Enclosed: Project Plans
VICINITY MAP
3249 BROAD ST.
ARC 90-25
U X4-75
o
S
- S 5
,,.� �� 5
El ya1 $
AbE-87
«
3.Ly Io,..
`, RL 8 30,9 3i 0 i �� yrv'L�'y I I OFI. A
v�
CR 1074 h5 94-e+
o 7i(. 750
e `rj
\k�1q a /002 7vi
CICA LLAb
`3?? QDa�'4 O A 77 00 11730 I Altai
X
` ER IS
� 3 r1RG 7q-3'J 1.
F. Ire
� O �
O 20 Q� .-J.
`OSS�9�QOJ s.
G �
c �
c►��
. low
d
"'"••.`v! 'r:.�`+:�";nN+}r:?%i yh<:}" ;'.'"�v.,.r•%�`r�♦t••.j J • � i
'jr�r:??:..nv:� ::fir?yi!i:i::•}. 4 Q H • i
2 0
� e r ewe r
Ool
'c •.
'a
o
' P
�i�nBll�lnlllBHlllllll��`��� �����IIIII at of sAn tuis * oBispo
I'A990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
Hay 2, 1990
Mr. Charles C. Massey
844 Escula Ct.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: Use Permit U1475; 3249 Broad Street
Dear Mr. Hassey:
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of April 25, 1990, approved your
request to allow a car sales lot at the above address. Approval is based on
findings and subject to conditions contained in the attached resolution and
the following code requirements:
1. Sidewalk shall be installed along the project's entire Broad Street
frontage to city standards.
2. Architectural review is required.
3. Street trees are required along the project's Broad Street frontage.
4. The applicant shall obtain all necessary building permits for work done
without city approval, including, but not limited to, grading, drainage
and parking lot installation.
The decision of the commission is final unless appealed to the City Clerk
within ten day of the action. An appeal may be filed by any person aggrieved
by a decision of the commission.
If the use or structure authorized by this use permit is not established
within one year of the date of approval or such longer time as may be
stipulated as a condition of approval, the use permit shall expire. See
municipal Code Section 17.58.070.D. for possible renewal.
If you have any questions, please contact David Moran at 549-7175.
Since Jely, n
1 + ,
Arnold B. Ana Director
Community Deve pment
Attachment: Resolution No. 5014-90
cc: Pults b Associates
7-�O
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5014-90
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
did conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chamber of the San Luis Obispo
City Hall, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 25, 1990, pursuant to a proceeding
instituted under application No. U1475 by Charles Massey, applicant.
USE PERMIT REQUESTED:
To allow a car sales lot.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
On file in the office of Community Development, City Hall.
GENERAL LOCATION:
3249 Broad Street.
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT:
Service-Commercial/Light Industrial.
PRESENT ZONING:
C-S-S
WHEREAS, said commission as a result of its inspections, investigations,
and studies made by itself, and in behalf and of testimonies offered at said hearing,
has established existence of the following circumstances:
1. The proposed use will not adversely affect the health,safety and welfare of
persons residing or worldng in the vicinity.
2. The use is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with
surrounding land uses.
3. The proposed use conforms with the general plan and meets zoning ordinance
requirements.
4. The proposed use is exempt from environmental review.
Resolution No. 5014-90
Use Permit U1475
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that application No. U1475
be revised subject to the following conditions:
1. Any lights installed on the site shall be down cut-off fixtures designed and
constructed to not shine off-site.
2. The applicant shall provide an on-site loading zone for deliveries, to the
approval of the Community Development Director. Unloading of delivery
vehicles on Broad Street is prohibited.
3. The drainage channel culvert shall be inspected for compliance to city
standards. If the drainage channel culvert does not meet city standards, it shall
be removed and the site shall be restored to the approval of the Community
Development Director and Public Works Department within 90 days (July 25,
1990).
4. Parking to city standards shall be provided for four vehicles on the site at all
times.
5. The site may be used for the wholesale and retail sale of cars and trucks only.
Any new use or expansion of the existing use shall not take place without prior
approval by the city.
6. The applicant shall dedicate a storm drain maintenance and access easement
over the drainage channel to the approval of the Community Development
Director and Public Works Director.
7. The hemp rope fence along the Broad Street frontage shall be relocated
entirely outside the public right-of-way.
8. The garages on the site may be used for the storage of cars and trucks
associated with the approved sales business only.
9. The applicant shall replace the existing fire hydrant along the project's Broad
Street frontage with a new commercial option Mueller H480-K or Clow 2065,
to the approval of the city Fire Department.
#-a0
Resolution No. 5014-90
Use Permit U1475
Page 3
10. The applicant shall submit plans for review by the Architectural Review
Commission which carefully examine landscape buffering arourhe entire site,
and grading on the southerly edge of the property.
The foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
of San Luis Obispo upon the motion of Commr. Gurnee, seconded by Commr.
Hoffman, and upon the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commrs. Gurnee, Hoffman, Billington, Karlesldnt, and Peterson
NOES: Commr. Schmidt
ABSENT: Comm . Kouralds
Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary
Planning Commission
DATED: April 25, 1990
P .C. Minutes
April 25, 1990
Page 3 .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item 3 . Public Hearing: Use Permit U 1475. Request to allow a car sales
lot; 3249 Broad Street; C-S-S zone; Charles Massey , applicant .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Moran presented the staff report and asked that the Commission provide
direction regarding the preferred treatment of the drainage channel , and
continue review to allow the applicant to revise the plans accordingly .
Chairman Schmidt opened the public hearing.
Steve Pults, applicant ' s representative, discussed the sales lot use and
the drainage swale. He discussed the culverting and grading that occurred
in the area and requested allowance to culvert the remaining portion of the
drainage swale to maximize the use of the site . He agreed with the staff
report and conditions and stated that loading/unloading could be handled on
site.
Jeff Emerich, 549 Bluerock , stated that the swale was not defined as a
"creek" and that the 48" culvert was appropriate .
Brent Weesey , 1662 Fairview, discussed the city waterways map and stated
that this drainage swale was not represented on that map .
Champ Massey , 844 Escuela, applicant , discussed the site use and permits
obtained. he discussed the culverting request and the repair of the
driveway, and stated that no additional excavation had been done .
Dan Hall, 106 Felmar, was concerned with the dirt grading and fill piled
against the southerly property line . He was concerned about the impact of
heavy rains on these mounds .
Chairman Schmidt closed the public hearing.
Commr. Gurnee felt the swale was an enhancement and should not be culverted
further . He felt the use was appropriate to the site and that major
buffering should be done near residential property lines .
Commr . Hoffman did not feel the swale should be covered and was concerned
with the existing compaction of the dirt over the illegal culvert . He felt
there needed to be an additional retaining wall by the parking area . He
felt the use was appropriate to the site .
Commr . Peterson agreed with Commrs . Gurnee and Hoffman .
Commr. Karleskint agreed with the previous comments and suggested
strengthening the wording of condition 2 to prohibit on-street unloading .
Chairman Schmidt felt the use was appropriate at the site and should be
buffered from the residents . He felt the high piles of graded dirt shoul '
be reduced to a height of 3 '-4' above grade. He felt the existing culve
P .C. Minutes
April 25, 1990
Page 4.
was illegal and should be removed and felt that would mitigate flooding
concerns.
Commr. Gurnee moved to approve the use, subject to findings and conditions ,
with amendment to condition 3 to prohibit on-street unloading. He further
moved to direct staff to investigate the existing culvert and compaction to
ensure they met ordinance standards , and to allow no further culverting. He
moved to add a condition of approval to have the ARC consider the issues of
grading , landscaping, and buffering at the south end of the property and to
determine that if the culvert is not up to standards, it should be removed.
Commr . Hoffman seconded the motion, Resolution No . 5014-90 .
VOTING: AYES - Commrs. Gurnee, Hoffman, Billington, Karleskint , and
Peterson.
NOES - Commr. Schmidt.
ABSENT - Commr. Kourakis .
The motion passed .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item 4. Public Hearing: Tract 1877. Consideration of a tentative map
creating a 10-unit residential planned development condominium;
2936-2976 Rockview Place; R-2-S zone; William Dermody,
subdivider .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Moran presented the staff report and recommended approval of the
tentative map to Council .
Chairman Schmidt opened the public hearing.
Jeff Emerich, 1320 Nipomo, applicant ' s representative, stated that he
concurred with the staff report . He was concerned with condition 3 and
discussed the cross-lot drainage design and grading conformance with
approved plans.
Chairman Schmidt closed the public hearing.
Chairman Schmidt was concerned with the condominium status and noted he had
previously voted to approve this project as apartments .
Commr. Gurnee moved to recommended that council approve the tentative map ,
subject to findings and conditions, amending condition 3 to have grading
meet the previously approved grading plans .
Commr. Karleskint seconded the motion.
� �3
►��o��������i�i�lli►IIIII�IIIII���"1°����� II
III city of sAn WIS OBISPO
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
December 19, 1990
Mr. Charles Massey
844 Escuela
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
Subject: ARC 90-25: 3249 Broad Street
Automobile sales lot
Dear Mr. Massey:
The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of December
17, 1990, granted final approval to the above project with the
following items to return to staff in plans submitted for a
building permit:
1. Addition of a temporary irrigation system to accommodate
establishment of proposed vegetation in the open drainage
channel area.
2 . Substitution of proposed willows with California Sycamore
trees and additional mid-level height planting in the
drainage channel area.
3 . Indicate how the rear portion of the site will be used,
setbacks from the channel and culvert, and define the car
storage area with curbing and gravel redrock or crushed
granite for its surface.
4. . Retain the fence across the center of the site, but paint or
stain it.
5. A minimum of a 10-foot setback of all trees from the culvert
location.
6. Additional planting along the north property line for
screening.
7. More variety in the plant materials and height installed in
the street yard planters.
8. Security lighting.
9. Retaining wall along the southerly property line may be
redwood.
10. Relocation of the existing wire fence with wooden posts
currently encroaching on the property to the south to the
subject site.
Mr. Charles Massey
December 19, 1990
Page 2
il. Trash enclosure location and detail.
12. Buildings on-site to be painted a darker color.
Please note that improvements to the site as shown on plans and
including the above items are to be installed and completed by
June 1, 1991.
The decision of the commission is final unless appealed to the
City Clerk within ten day of the date of this letter. An appeal
may be filed by any person aggrieved by a decision of the
commission.
Please note that Architectural Review Commission approval expires
after one year if construction has not started, unless the
commission designated a different time period. On request, the
Community Development Director may grant an extension of up to
one year, but not greater than two years beyond the original date
of ARC approval.
Minutes of this meeting will be sent to you as soon as they are
available.
If you have any questions, please contact Pamela Ricci at 549-
7168.
Sincerely,
Ken Bruce
Senior Planner
cc: Steve Pults
•x' RECEIVtu
CHANIP IIASSEY MAY 301991
'WHOLESALE CAR �COMPAM
Crtr Of San Lws 00,0,
3249 Broad Street . San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(80$) 5444556
FAX(805) 543-4312
May 27, 1991
To: Pam Ricci
From: Champ Massey
Re: Jerry Kenny's letter of May 3rd about my property/business at 3249
Broad St.
Dear Ms. Ricci:
Please forward this letter to everyone that received a copy of Mr. Kenny's
memo to you.
The general tone of his letter was negative and characteristically con-
descending in nature. "You may wish to consider rescinding his use
permit," and "Massey has been dragging his feet ", etc. , etc. , are not
conducive to progressive conclusions.
Please understand, since being approved by the Planning Commission. . .I
have spent over $15,000, at the direction of the City Planning Staff.
Not one tangible improvement has been accomplished. My asphalt still
needs to be sealed, the buildings still need paint, my business needs a
sign, a retaining wall is yet to be installed, the landscaping remains
unfinished. . . because the City Planning Staff will not allow me to start.
work. The $15,000. , has been virtually wasted and all the studies and
consultants it went for were mostly of a punitive rather than a construc-
tive nature.
I certainly have not been dragging my feet, but my spirit is dragging and
I will not continue on this course. The City Planning Staff and it co-work-
ers seem to operate with dissent and possible contempt for decisions by
the Planning Commission that don't agree with them. This most recent hur-
dle can be blown up by city staff to give an apprearance of defiance to the
whole process, by me. However, it is quite simple. I am more than ready
to sign a statement giving the City " absolute right to enter my property",
and my agreement to maintain the ditch. To insist on a deed restrictive
easement across 30' by 90' feet will result in only one thing. . . another
financial beating for my family. The irony is the City simply wants to put
enough road blocks in my way so that I don't use the property as a car-lot
and I only bought the property for that very use because the City made me
leave 641 Higuera St. , because it wasn't zoned properly, even though they
issued me a business lic. I sold my lease at 396 Marsh to move to 641
Higuera. The funny thing is the land out here has gone up in value and it's
best use is not a car-lot, but a car-lot pays the. bills. I have no idea
t-
CHAMP IUSSEY
WHOLESALE CAR COMPANY
3249 Broad Street . San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 5444556
FAX(805) 543-4312
page 2, Pam Ricci
what this property will be developed into; however, to restrict it's
future by ruining 2700SF plus about 3000SF behind the area is at best
premature.
I will sell or develop this property on my schedule and I will not be
intimidated by the City anyfurther. To spend over $15,000. to get "per-
mission" to clean the property up (which will cost less than $5000. ) for
a use that is not permanent is about all I am willing to waste.
Submitt
M
May 3 , 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: :_Pam Ricci
FROM rry Kenny
SUBJE Massey Auto Sales Lot - Drainage Easement
3249 Broad Street (U1475)
This department feels the drain should either be removed and the
channel restored, or, provide the easement and other remedial
measures to allow the storm drain pipe to stay. Too much staff
time has been spent on this project, considering the work was
done without permits. This battle has been going on for years.
The fact is that the City has no current absolute right to enter
the property as indicated in the letter from Pults (Brent Wiese,
dated 4-30-91) . Massey has been dragging his feet on this issue
since Jack Kellerman was Chief Building Official. You may wish
to consider rescinding his use permit. I 'm not sure of the
status of the other use permit conditions. You should also
contact Bob Bishop for any other outstanding items related to the
grading permit.
The easement requirement is per Council policy (Pink Book) per
Resolution No. 5138 (1983 Series) . Since they refer to
postponing the easemnt to some future project, it would be no
different then, from now, except we'd have to fight about it
again later and spend MORE TIME.
c: Tom Baasch
-A-(e V1;1 /11/44
P: \jerry\3249Brod.wp
f
April 30, 1991
Pam Ricci
Planning Department
City of San Luis Obispo
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Re: Massey Auto Lot
3249 Broad Street
Dear Pam,
Our client wishes to return to the Planning Commission to review a specific
condition of the current Use Permit concerning his property. This condition is as
follows:
Use Permit U1475
S. 'The applicant shall dedicate a storm drain maintenance and access
easement over the drainage channel to the approval of the Community
Development Director and Public Works Director.'
Through the approval process, it has been agreed with all concerned parties that
the city will not be responsible for maintenance of the culvert. Champ Massey
has expressed that he currently assumes that responsibility.
It is common knowledge that if and when the need arises, the city can at any time
access any creek in an emergency.
Finally, providing ingress and egress shall always be a concern of the Public
Works Department. Because no work can be done on the site without the
approvals of that department, this concern shall always be part of their review
process.
Therefore our client feels, that providing an easement would be a labor of
redundancy that really provides nothing more than what already exists. Champ
understands that as the owner of the property, he is already ultimately
responsible for the maintenance of the culvert. To provide access through the
creek for the city is not needed since they already retain that right.
In regards to providing a condition for ingress and egress, we believe thY Ithis is UP 57.721
not the time. We contend, that if such a condition is important at the time of some
future development, it will become a condition of such. If it is not important,
then the site need not be burdened by an outdated condition.
Architedur e,Planning£-Crapbics
1401 Higuera Street
San Luis Obispo.California 93401
805/541-5 04
If it would facilitate the legal paperwork of the city, Champ is more than willing
to provide a letter concerning "responsibility of maintenance' of the culvert.
But to provide an easement, he feels would economically burden his site.
I appreciate your help in this matter. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please feel free to call.
Sincerely,
Brent .Wiese
oc: Champ Massey
Public Works
city. of sAn tuis oBispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
M E M O
April 12, 1991
TO: Dave Romero, Public Works Director
FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Dire r
SUBJECT: Drainage Easement
3249 Broad Street
The Planning Commission approved Use Permit U1475 allowing a used
car lot with condition 6, which requires the applicant to dedicate
a storm drain maintenance and access easement over the drainage
channel to the approval of the Community Development Director and
Public Works Director.
Your staff has proposed a 36-foot wide easement over the partially
open and partially covered drainage channel. This easement width
and location meets my expectations and receives my approval and
support.
9 2 221 222 22: L2'F 22G 2ZL
3�
- 1
1 \
1�
i
� \ \ � r•PO.A OE. CGLJ.d�t
A YLl+c.1 iN .f d \
17
00 Aw
¢V,=�-40P
l At
z I
\ \\ \
���i�����i6����II►I�lflll�1°�°°�� III
city of sAn tuis oaspo
955 Morro Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
February 8, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney
FRO Jerry Kenny, Supervising Civil Engineer
SUBJE& Drainage Easement for Champ Massey Used Car
Lot at 3249 Broad Street
The Planning Commission approved a use permit for the Champ
Massey Car Sales, subject to granting of a drainage easement and
the pipe size, etc. , meeting City standards to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer and issuance of a grading permit.
It has been determined that the pipe size is adequate, but that
there are certain modifications necesary to make the pipe
acceptable even as a "privately" maintained storm drain.
Additionally, our current standards do not allow corrugated metal
pipe (CMP) .
Therefore, since the work has already been done, the Public Works
Director and City Engineer will allow the pipe to remain (after
necessary repairs and issuance of a grading permit by the
Building Division) , but will not accept the pipe for City
maintenance. There is also an existing 18-inch CMP pipe within
the property that drains water from Rockview Place, which was
connected to the 48-inch pipe. We have no record of an easement
to the City for that pipe and assume it was installed by the
property owner and, presumably, existed when the area annexed.
The 48-inch pipe only extends part way through the site, with the
remainder being a trapezoidal open channel, as shown on the
attached grading plan.
Please review the wording of the attached easement required as a
use permit condition to cover:
1. Maintenance of the drainage way by City crews. (routine
clearing to maintain flow, etc. )
2. Maintenance by Massey of:
a) the existing 48-inch pipe structure and the existing 18-
inch pipe structure, and
b) any landscaping and slope protection within the easement.
Attachments: 1. Easement
2. Grading Plan
P: \jerry\Massey.wp �-33
Recording Requested by:
CITY OF' SAN LUIS OBISPO
When Recorded Please Return to:
CITY CLERK
City of San Luis Obispo
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
--------------Space Above This Line for Recorders Use-----------
GRANT OF EASEMENT APN 004-601-023
DRAINAGE WAY EASEMENT
3249 BROAD ST
Charles Massey and Vivian P. Massey, as GRANTORS, hereby grant to
the City of San Luis Obispo, a Chartered' Municipal Corporation,
as GRANTEE,
An easement to maintain a drainage course across the property
described in attached EXHIBIT A, and shown pictorially on
attached EXHIBIT B, together with the right of ingress and egress
through the subject property to said easement.
Provided however that the maintenance of the property, including
existing 48" and 18" corrugated metal pipes, creek-banks, slope
protection, landscaping, weed abatement, etc, shall remain the
responsibility of the GRANTOR, his heirs and assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, GRANTOR has hereunto caused its name to be
subscribed this day of 1991.
Charles Massey Vivian P. Massey
(ATTACH NOTARY CERTIFICATE HERE)
HBp/easement
hb
�-3�
Massey to City
Drainage Easement
EXHIBIT A
A strip of land, 36 feet wide, described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point on the northwesterly line of lot 20 of the
Yoakum Poultry Unit Tract, City of San Luis Obispo, County of San
Luis Obispo, California as recorded March 11, 1927 in Book 3,
Page 89 of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said
County, said line having a bearing of North 57031' East. Said
point being the most Westerly corner of that parcel of land
conveyed to Charles Massey and Vivian P. Massey by deed dated
March 27, 1984 and recorded in Volume 2578 of Official Records at
Page 450;
Thence South 320 29 ' East, along the soutwesterly line of said
parcel of land 3. 0 feet to a point on said line, said point being
the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence, leaving said southwesterly line South 640 55 ' East 172
feet, more or less, to the southeasterly line of said parcel,
thence South 57' 31' West along said southeasterly line 40. 5
feet, more or less, to a point 36 feet, (measured at right
angles) from the above said northeasterly line of the drainage
easement herein described; thence North 640 55 ' West 89 feet,
more or less, to the southwesterly line of said parcel of land,
thence along said southwesterly line 71 feet, more or less, to
the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Said strip of land is shown on attached EXHIBIT B, a part of this
description.
1 .
1
O
m
\v
U K
�t c U o
I � ri •.��--11 ,Vf
b
a
�.
cz� �.4 F-i b
� O G7
N O
f �
'IA f
f-Q,
�+ cdco
�w
Z z0 4J
0 ma 0
m meiM �o 0 5 ~o M r �4
Oo
CTS A ~U m U]'d
C,2 ID
o C Oma' iR10 =A" O
xm.d \
� Gj � .. = Oa
o r, \
C �P.;2 O"aE 0N a* do 00 di �