Title
Hearing to consider an appeal of the approval of a revision to Special Use Permit S98-0017R which would allow the expansion of an existing helicopter parts manufacturing facility by 38,850 square feet and relocation of the existing helipad to the eastern edge of property identified as APN 117-081-01, located on the south side of Sandstone Drive, approximately 1,000 feet west of the Golden Foothills Parkway, adjacent to the Four Seasons senior residential development in the El Dorado Hills area (Supervisorial District II). Applicant: Aerometals/
Rex Kamphefner; Appellants: William and Linda McCormick.
Body
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Deny the appeal, thereby upholding the action of the Planning Commission to conditionally approve Special Use Permit S98-0017R.
Background: Special Use Permit S98-0017 was approved on December 10, 1998, to permit a helipad associated with a manufacturing facility in the El Dorado Hills Business Park. The use permit was required due to the potential noise and hazard from the helipad, which is used for testing helicopter parts manufactured on site. The permit was approved prior to the development of the Four Seasons subdivision, part of the Carson Creek Specific Plan, but the future adjacent residential uses were considered with a requirement that the helipad be relocated after the homes were constructed. This revision was submitted due to the proposed expansion of the facility
DISCUSSION
The appellant has listed five items of concern regarding the approval of the expansion. These are: Conditions of approval, discrepancies on building location, landscaping, outside lighting, and air conditioning units. A more detailed description of the appellants' concerns are described in a letter dated January 13, 2007. Each of the issues are discussed below.
Conditions of approval - It is unclear what the appellant's concerns are regarding the conditions. In the follow-up letter, the appellant described how the developers of her home disclosed that the helipad existed, and that future residential development would occur to the south, but not that Aerometals would be expanding. The application was filed on February 6, 2006, but due to issues relating to floor area ratio and wetlands, was delayed in processing. The hearing notice was filed on November 3, 2006. Prior to the public notice the adjacent property owners would not have been aware of the proposed expansion.
Discrepancies with building location - The original proposal extended the structure to the setback line at the south end of the property, 15 feet from the property line. The project was later revised and the structure now would extend to 37 feet from the southern boundary. When staff first met with the appellant after the hearing, an earlier set of plans was inadvertently used to review the effect of the project on the appellants' property. The structure does, however, extend along a portion of appellants' rear property, partially blocking the view to the east.
Landscaping - Several neighbors expressed concerns at the Planning Commission hearing about the visibility of the structure and how it will block their view of the hills to the east. The Commission imposed a new condition to require that landscaping be installed to partially screen the building, although it will do nothing with regard to the loss of the view. The landscaping (trees) could be installed either within the 15-foot setback on the subject property, or in the backyards of the affected property owners. After the hearing, the applicant met with many of the owners and there was a consensus that the owners preferred the landscaping to be installed in the backyards so that the residents could ensure that the trees were maintained. The Commission expressed concerns that landscaping may not be able to be installed along the back side of the building due to fire access needs. Staff has discussed this with the El Dorado Hills Fire Department Fire Prevention Officer who stated that trees could be planted there if necessary. The final design of the landscaping is to meet with the approval of the homeowners.
Outside lighting - The appellants have requested that no lights be installed that would shine into the rear yards or windows of the adjacent residences. The plans do not show any lights proposed along the back side of the structure, and any lights installed as a part of the project must conform with the provisions of County Code ยง17.14.170, which would prohibit lighting to spill over onto the neighboring properties.
Roof mounted air conditioning units - The appellant has requested that all HVAC units be placed where they are not visible by the homeowners. All equipment will be shielded by a parapet wall.
In summary, the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission address most of the concerns raised by the appellant, with the exception of the structure blocking the view of the hills from the adjacent residences. Although notified by the sellers that the homes were adjacent to the Business Park, it was not made clear that the business had the ability to expand as allowed under the R&D zoning. The reason that this business is under a use permit is because of the helipad, and without that the building could have been built by right (building permit only), while meeting standard zoning and building code requirements. Issues of noise and hazards associated with the use of the helicopter have been addressed under this use permit.
None of the issues raised by the appellants show that the action of the Planning Commission was inconsistent with applicable policies of the General Plan or provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. As such, staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors uphold the Commission's approval and deny the appeal.
Contact: Gregory L. Fuz (5445)/Lawrence D. Appel (7698)/Peter Maurer (5331)