Title
Planning Services Division submitting revised findings for denial of the appeal of Special Use Permit 06-0133 and reverse the Planning Commission's decision, as directed by the Board of Supervisors on January 30, 2007, Item 36, pertaining to the appeal of a legal non-conforming use determination submitted by Gene Long for property identified as APN 009-140-19 consisting of 4.19 acres in the Pacific House area. (Supervisorial District II)
Body
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Planning Services staff recommends the Board deny the appeal, thereby upholding the action of the Planning Commission on December 14, 2006, to conditionally approve the legal non-conforming use for the Pacific House Automotive Repair Service subject to the conditions as modified below.
Background: On December 14, 2006, the Planning Commission determined the existing auto repair facility to be a legal, non-conforming use and imposed the following conditions for the property owner to comply with in order to retain legal non-conforming status for the automotive repair facility:
1. Find that the automotive repair facility is a legal non-conforming use based on the testimony and exhibits provided by the property owner and letters submitted by nearby property owners and that the lift is part of the non-conforming use.
2. Require the owner to submit a complete site plan review application and pay all applicable fees within 60 days of this hearing.
3. Site plan shall note location of all automotive operations i.e. bays, storage, trash enclosures, offices, parking, and locations of residential buildings and all other structures on the site.
4. Require property owner to correct all building code violations items listed on the Notice to Correct dated March 17, 2006, items listed on the Notice to Correct dated March 17, 2006, within a timeframe consistent with Code enforcement procedures and policies.
5. Require removal of junk cars and buses within a timeframe that is consistent with the policies and procedures required by Vehicle Abatement.
The Commission waived the site plan review fee and allowed an outdoor car lift as part of the legal non-conforming status of the automotive repair facility. An appeal on the Planning Commissions decision was submitted by the property owner December 29, 2006.
The points raised by the appellant are as follows:
The appellant requests that Conditions 4 and 5 be removed from the determination made by the Planning Commission December 14, 2006. Conditions 4 and 5 are as follows:
4. Require the property owner to correct all items listed on the Notice to Correct dated March 17, 2006, within a timeframe consistent with Code Enforcement procedures and policies.
Discussion: Upon a site inspection by County Code Enforcement staff, numerous building code violations were identified, and a subsequent Notice of Correction was sent to the property owner. The property owner believes that Code Enforcement should have ignored other violations that were not part of the original complaint. Building code violations that pose a public safety and health hazard need to be resolved. This condition was subsequently approved by the Planning Commission based on staff's recommendation regardless of the zoning compliance.
5. Require removal of junk cars and buses within a timeframe that is consistent with the policies and procedures required by Vehicle Abatement.
Discussion: The property owner has stated that he believes the Vehicle Abatement issue has been resolved and intends to keep only customer vehicles and some private vehicles associated with the business and commercial enterprises. The property owner believes that since he has a State of California Bureau of Automotive Repair License that lists vehicle restoration he is also consistent with El Dorado County's definition of what constitutes automotive repair and therefore allowed to keep personal cars for restoration. The Planning Commission only made a determination of the use for the property and not a determination as to whether or not the vehicles stored on the site would be allowed to stay. A determination of those vehicles that are being stored for the business or personal vehicles that are non-operable and are not for the business would have to be made by Vehicle Abatement.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission made a determination for the use of a portion of the property as a legal non-conforming automotive repair facility. Conditions were added to ensure public health, safety, and welfare in regard to the building code violations for the residential component of the property. Storage of non-operational vehicles that are not exclusively related to an automotive repair facility but that are the property owners personal vehicles would need to be determined by Vehicle Abatement.
Contact: Gregory L. Fuz (5445)/Michael Baron (7428)