Mono County ¡Lanning Commission Agenda
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MONO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION PO Box 347 PO Box 8 Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546 Bridgeport, CA 93517 760.924.1800, fax 924.1801 760.932.5420, fax 932.5431 [email protected] www.monocounty.ca.gov AGENDA THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 2014 – 10 a.m. Supervisors Chambers, County Courthouse, Bridgeport *Videoconference: BOS Conference Room, third floor, Sierra Center Mall, Mammoth Lakes Full agenda packets, plus associated materials distributed less than 72 hours prior to the meeting, will be available for public review at the Community Development offices in Bridgeport (Annex 1, 74 N. School St.) or Mammoth Lakes (Minaret Village Mall, above Giovanni’s restaurant). Agenda packets are also posted online at www.monocounty.ca.gov / boards & commissions / planning commission. For inclusion on the e- mail distribution list, interested persons can subscribe on the website. *Agenda sequence (see note following agenda). 1. CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. PUBLIC COMMENT: Opportunity to address the Planning Commission on items not on the agenda 3. MEETING MINUTES: Review and adopt minutes of July 10, 2014 – p. 1 4. CONSENT ITEM 10:10 A.M. FINAL APPROVAL OF PARCEL MAP 13-001/ Hildenbrand-Booth. Approval of Parcel Map 13- 001 will divide APN 026-220-009, totaling 6.30 acres, into four lots of 2.39, 1.19, 1.19, and 1.43 acres, along with an offer of dedication of 0.10 acres along Valley Road. The project is located in the community of Chalfant. Access is via Valley Road, with a proposed private road, Owens Ranch Road. Individual wells and septic systems are proposed. The land use designation is Rural Mobile Home (RMH). The Tentative Parcel Map was approved at a public hearing conducted by the Planning Commission on October 10, 2013. Staff: Garrett Higerd & Walt Lehmann – p. 5 5. PUBLIC HEARING 10:15 A.M. A. EXPANDED HOME OCCUPATION 14-001/Draper (continued from May 8 at applicant’s request). Consider proposal to cut, split and deliver firewood as needed from owner’s residence to buyers as an expanded home occupation. Owner is the sole employee, and on-site storage would be limited to a single cord of firewood. Business would be conducted as needed, but may operate daily. The property is approximately 1.3 acres (APN 011-040-029) located at 110 Mt. Patterson Dr., Bridgeport, and has a land use designation of Estate Residential (ER). A CEQA exemption is proposed. Staff: Gerry Le Francois – p. 17 6. WORKSHOPS A. GENERAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Planning staff – p. 30 B. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN/CIRCULATION ELEMENT. Staff: Gerry Le Francois – p. 48 More on back… DISTRICT #1 DISTRICT #2 DISTRICT #3 DISTRICT #4 DISTRICT #5 COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER Mary Pipersky Rodger B. Thompson Daniel Roberts Scott Bush Chris Lizza 7. REPORTS: A. DIRECTOR B. COMMISSIONERS 8. INFORMATIONAL: No items. 9. ADJOURN to September 11, 2014 *NOTE: Although the Planning Commission generally strives to follow the agenda sequence, it reserves the right to take any agenda item – other than a noticed public hearing – in any order, and at any time after its meeting starts. The Planning Commission encourages public attendance and participation. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, anyone who needs special assistance to attend this meeting can contact the Commission secretary at 760-924-1804 within 48 hours prior to the meeting in order to ensure accessibility (see 42 USCS 12132, 28CFR 35.130). *The public may participate in the meeting at the teleconference site, where attendees may address the Commission directly. Please be advised that Mono County does its best to ensure the reliability of videoconferencing, but cannot guarantee that the system always works. If an agenda item is important to you, you might consider attending the meeting in Bridgeport. Full agenda packets, plus associated materials distributed less than 72 hours prior to the meeting, will be available for public review at the Community Development offices in Bridgeport (Annex 1, 74 N. School St.) or Mammoth Lakes (Minaret Village Mall, above Giovanni’s restaurant). Agenda packets are also posted online at www.monocounty.ca.gov / departments / community development / commissions & committees / planning commission. For inclusion on the e- mail distribution list, send request to [email protected] Interested persons may appear before the Commission to present testimony for public hearings, or prior to or at the hearing file written correspondence with the Commission secretary. Future court challenges to these items may be limited to those issues raised at the public hearing or provided in writing to the Mono County Planning Commission prior to or at the public hearing. Project proponents, agents or citizens who wish to speak are asked to be acknowledged by the Chair, print their names on the sign-in sheet, and address the Commission from the podium. MONO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION PO Box 347 PO Box 8 Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546 Bridgeport, CA 93517 760.924.1800, fax 924.1801 760.932.5420, fax 932.5431 [email protected] www.monocounty.ca.gov DRAFT MINUTES JULY 10, 2014 COMMISSIONERS: Scott Bush, Chris Lizza, Mary Pipersky, Dan Roberts, Rodger B. Thompson STAFF: Scott Burns, CDD director; Gerry Le Francois, principal planner, Courtney Weiche, associate planner, & Wendy Sugimura, associate analyst (video); Brent Calloway, associate analyst; Nick Criss, compliance officer; Walt Lehmann, public works; Stacey Simon, assistant county counsel; C.D. Ritter, commission secretary 1. CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Chair Mary Pipersky called the meeting to order at 10:10 a.m. in the board chambers at the county courthouse in Bridgeport, and attendees recited the pledge of allegiance. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT: No items. 3. MEETING MINUTES: MOTION: Adopt minutes of Special Meeting May 8, 2014 (no meeting in June) as amended: Add question mark to Tom Sigler’s comment – He has dirt lot, so needs water/oil separator? (Bush/Lizza. Ayes: 5-0.) 4. ACTION ITEMS: A. RESOLUTION R14-05/three affirmative votes: Stacey Simon described follow-up on voting requirements for taking action. Under state law, two votes of three can effectuate an action. However, some County Code indicates three affirmative, and Commission liked requirement of three. Ask BOS to clarify, strengthen rule. Maybe not for procedural matters, but for non-substantive matters. Commissioner Bush strongly believed in three-vote majority, with at least three of five agreeing with project. How to handle contentious meeting with only three present? Applicant needs to understand in advance unanimous vote is required. Scott Burns suggested bylaws could memorialize it. Bush noted applicant could demand vote with three present. Commissioner Lizza thought Chair ought to clarify to applicant, who could ask for continuance. Simon stated applicant could request in writing continuance for good cause. If continuance follows publication of notice, it’s discretionary. Director can ask for continuance. Table until Board of Supervisors (BOS) reviews it. BOS itself is subject to three-vote requirement. Simon reminded that all Planning Commission decisions can be appealed to BOS. Bush recalled that Commission is always amenable to a proponent’s request. What if someone wants it done now? He thought proponent had right to decide on going forward if only three. Simon stated it was time to think about whether in County Code or bylaws. Commissioner Thompson suggested BOS clarification, come back later on bylaws. MOTION: Adopt Resolution R14-05 requesting and recommending that the Board of Supervisors clarify and affirm that three affirmative votes are required for the transaction of business by the Planning Commission, with specified exemptions. (Bush/Roberts. Ayes: 5-0.) B. ROCK CREEK CANYON SPECIFIC PLAN/Interpretation on privacy fence extension: Gerry Le Francois and Maggie Palchak attended by teleconference. In 14-lot Rock Creek Canyon subdivision, privacy fencing less than 6’ in height is allowed. Minimums, building envelopes, and restrictions on fencing exist in envelope area, concern about lots 6, 7 and 8. If property borders Lower Rock Creek Road, solid privacy DISTRICT #1 DISTRICT #2 DISTRICT #3 DISTRICT #4 DISTRICT #5 COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER Mary Pipersky Rodger B. Thompson Daniel Roberts Scott Bush Chris Lizza 1 fencing is allowed. Split-rail only looks continuous, but is not on property line. Is it compatible to extend solid wood fencing 12’-14’ to be contiguous from property line to gate? People come onto property, and split-rail wouldn’t stop them. Staff thought fence would be compatible with Specific Plan and General Plan, but can’t approve on 12’-14’ section. Easement on designated section? On private access road. Public access to creek is open-space parcel upstream and along Mono right of way. Opposition? Staff struggled because solid fencing contiguous to gate was not addressed. No public noticing, just clarification by Planning Commission. Scott Burns noted no requirement to notice to surrounding property owners. Commission could continue to include noticing. Building site? Further downstream. Creek runs east-west. How far is split-rail from building structure? Unknown. Three lots are allowed to install fencing along property lines. Restricted additional fencing to building envelopes, split rail to allow wildlife passage. Palchak noted property was intersected by private road and Lower Rock Creek Road; property on both sides of creek. House probably 75’-100’ from corner. People come off bike trail and into creek. Some interactions have occurred. She thanked Burns, Le Francois and Supervisor Stump for time spent. Gate was put up by Hooper when equipment was there. Specific Plan mentions gate to limit access. Other concern is “attractive nuisance,” if people get into creek. Gate still there? Yes, open most of time. Will gate stay? Auto slicing gate is a permanent structure. Purpose of gate? Limit traffic on private road.