Planning Commission Regular Meeting

consent calendar, we have the minutes of the September 2nd meeting. Are there any corrections or changes to those minutes? Hearing none, we will accept the minutes as written. Disclosure of site visits and ex parte contacts. Katrina?

I have visited both sites for items two and three, no ex parte contacts. And I will recuse myself on item four because I live within 500 feet

Thank you. Jonathan?

No site visits or ex parte contacts.

None on my behalf.

OK, I have visited both sites and have had no ex parte contacts. We will now open public hearing item two. And could we have the staff report on that please? Yes, you may.

Just one moment. Make this bigger. OK, the request here is for a variance and design review permit to exceed lot coverage to give you the address first. Sorry about that. Oh, this is not my project. I think Lucas knew that. I'm sorry? There we go. I want to make sure, yes. No. I thought I had it, Lucas. Here you go. I'm sorry? There we go. Thank you. So this is a variance and design review request for a project located at, oh my goodness, 201 Lark Ellen Avenue.

The request is for a variance and design review permit. To exceed lot coverage from 42.35%, where 35% is permitted, the staff report in your packet includes a request for reduction and required driveway setback as well. However, after a deeper dive into the municipal code it was discovered that 24 feet are not required in this case. And in fact they're not required for driveway depth unless a garage entrance is perpendicular to a driveway.

So, there's an additional correction also on page 7 in the second to last paragraph where it states that the existing residence is 1,416 square feet. The correction is twofold. First, the number 1416 is incorrect. However, it's meant to be for the residents as well as the garage, the total structure and the accurate number is 1201 square feet. The proposed increase in lot coverage is resulting from two proposed additions, including a dining room and garage extension. The single-family residence is part of an existing duplex as you can see here on the screen.

Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission deny the request based on the inability to make findings as described in your staff report Um, which details that the subject site and existing residents are similar in shape and topography to other property in the vicinity. However, the actual lot size and residence itself including the garage are greater than those in the surrounding vicinity at this currently.

staff analyzed 16 surrounding parcels Developed in this duplex development and the analysis it again. This is in your staff report includes the subject parcel and the average lot size was found to be approximately 4,000 square feet and the average size of existing residence is 908 square feet The project site lot size is 5,500 square feet plus. And the residence and including the garage is...and here's that incorrect number. Well, the house itself is 1201 and you know what?

Sorry. is 1504 square feet, 1201 for the residents and 303 for the garage. Therefore the subject site is not denied of privileges enjoyed by others in the surrounding area which is one of the findings And the Planning Commission this evening is required to, or is charged with making all of the findings included in the code for approving a variance. The topic of the existing non-conforming garage There is a non-conforming garage and the topic of this came up before the meeting this evening Historic files indicate that there was an interior remodel potentially without benefit of permit and this Interior modification encroached into the existing garage, which was originally built to code Which is required to have an interior dimension of 20 feet by 20 feet and so As the City of Ojai Community Development Department is currently proactive when it comes to code compliance, and this interior remodel will be investigated separately from tonight's meeting.

So with that, again, staff was unable to recommend approval due to not being able to make the findings. And I'm going to turn it over to you. We do have an applicant here this evening who has provided us with something that he's going to talk about this evening. What I put before you is pretty much what he'll be talking about. But I'd like to turn it over to you now. Thank you.

Thank you, Maura. Do you have any questions for Maura before we turn to the applicant?

I didn't think I was going to have any, but I have one more. And this is based on what the applicant's letter said and it has to do with site coverage. It's 35% is the site coverage for the R1 zone. R2 zone, sorry. 35%. And the site coverage has in the code a note that says maximum percentage of the site area that may be covered by structures. And he pointed out that in the past, driveways were not included in that. So can you update us why it is now?

Absolutely. So a couple of years ago we had a planner who was investigating the details for a project that was coming before the Planning Commission regarding lot coverage. And it was found, and now we have to use because it is in the code. In the definition section of the code, site coverage includes driveways. And so yes from there forward, and it's been a couple years now, driveways are included in lot coverage when we're looking at additions or even new built developments.

I've encountered in other instances that there would be a lot coverage requirement, but then also like a built structure minimum. We don't have something like that though?

No and- It's just the

lot coverage offsets and then I guess the overall built square footage.

Well, so it's all added up. The individual structures and the driveway. And so the theory is looking back since we weren't here when this section of the code was created was to prevent mansionization. It's very common mansionization. So to build out the lot and it's not uncommon in different cities that the driveway is included.

Thank you,

well an uncommon or not it is in our code. So thank you

any other questions

Yeah, I just a little bit of housekeeping so on their plans Let me make sure I've got my numbers straight here on their plans. They show the APN ending in 475

so the APN that's in your staff report and is incorrect. The APN that's there was for the site, which is then it turned in... The lot was probably split and so there is a corrected staff report. However, it's not the one that you received in your packet. So yes, the APN is incorrect however you are looking at the project site.

Okay.

So the 38.2% existing includes the driveway?

Yes.

The current overbill status includes the driveway? Yes, yes it does.

So in addition- And does

the nine... Sorry, the 42.35%, is that just for the kitchen build up?

They're looking to expand the garage and a dining room. And those two plus the driveway equals 42.35%.

I mean, I do kind of wish that the site plan was bigger on this because it's kind of the most important thing in this plan. But he can get up and tell us but it seems like what they're saying is that a proportion of this is if you're just expanding the garage into the driveway then it's not changing the site coverage. I mean, that portion of expansion wouldn't be changing the site coverage.

Oh, that's right. Is that

what he's

saying? That's absolutely true. So

that's why

I'm just trying to

understand the numbers based... What would the new numbers be based on that

thought? We do have numbers on your site plan and so on page T01 we have an existing lot area, an existing residence of 1201 An existing garage of 303, and we have an addition of 215 plus 184. Just a second here. So the driveway, the existing driveway is 622 square feet, and the proposed driveway would be 437 square feet. So the proposed lot coverage is 42.35%. OK.

That's

the existing, that's the proposed lot coverage plus the driveway that would be remaining after it was encroached upon by the garage. Did I say that right? Yes. The driveway, the leftover driveway

Really the only the only additional Site coverage would be the side,

right? Honestly,

I

think so

It seems like the

reason why I thank you for bringing this up. The reason why this is included in the staff report is because initially staff was looking at a reduction in required Back out area in the driveway But since that's no longer or isn't, it was never a real issue. The expansion to increase the lot coverage is yes only the dining room however we still end up with the same square footage.

We have let's see

I just feel like this is the only drawing we need. It's very small.

Just a second. 1791. Lucas, would you mind doing a lot coverage calculation for me? We have 5564 for the lot size. May be 17-19 for coverage. Let's see. It looks like the log coverage doesn't take into account

that. Oh, here's the driveway 11.

17- 19 but I'm not sure. That's not right. Just a second. Sorry. 2%. Oh,

I see. So they did do the math down there.

Proposed driveway and addition.

Okay, never mind it looks like it was done in this

yes, and it's and it is the forty two point thirty five Yes,

so otherwise it would be

more. Okay?

Okay Do we have any other questions for staff before hearing from the applicant

No,

okay in that case I would invite the applicant to come forward at this time and

Good evening, everyone. My name is Eugene Vander and my wife is Sheila Vander and our son-in-law is Paul Vander and behind is Wade Elson who is our designer. And I passed out this to make it easy for you to kind of follow along and take questions whenever you like, either now or at the end. We moved to Ojai from Michigan and into our home at 201 North Grand Avenue in 2021. Our home is a duplex built in 1973. We live in the south half of the duplex.

And Maura has already alluded to some of what I'm going to say. After some changes made to the house many years ago by former owners, long before we moved to Ojai, the house's size increased to its current size of 1,201 square feet. The owner increased the house size at that time in part by chopping into and taking a trunk out of the back of the garage so the garage is now smaller and currently non-conforming to code.

Our proposed garage extension will correct this deficit and make it conforming. Excluding our driveway, our current lot or structure coverage is 27%. Our house's current size is 1,201 square feet, and the garage is now at 303 square feet. Note that our house is a single story residence and the additions will not add a second story. So the purpose of today's appeal is to gain approval of a structure increase from 38.2% to 42.35%.

And the description of their proposed variance, there's three things. One wasn't mentioned and I will mention it but it's very small that I want to get all out there on the table. The first one is we want to build a 215 square foot addition to the south side of the house in order to expand what currently is our really small kitchen and a very small dining room.

The second one was to increase the garage by 184 square feet, by extending it nine feet towards the front sidewalk to make the garage conforming. And as I've heard before, this will actually not increase structure coverage. It simply exchanges driveway structure coverage for garage structure coverage. In other words our garage is a little bit bigger, our driveway's now a little bit smaller.

None of these expansions will infringe on front, rear and side required setbacks. The total proposed structure will be 42.35% including the driveway and not too far in the past if you exclude the driveway we'd be proposing 34.5%, which is less than 35% which used to be the standard, is still the standard but now we have to include the driveway unfortunately for us.

Reasons for appeal to be approved. Oh, I'm sorry. There was one other one Expand the front porch by 17 square feet by simply extend the roof out a little bit That wasn't mentioned today, but I did want to put it out there. So that's a Front porch extensive of 17 square feet reasons for appeal to be approved One is legislative intent 35% lot structure coverage used to exclude driveways in Ojai.

City code introduced in the early 2000s included driveways towards a 35% structure coverage, but the city apparently never enforced this into the last couple of years. The city did email me and my wife that this driveway's a structure code was an attempt to prevent the mansionization which Maura just mentioned It was designed to prevent the mansionization of Ojai.

I don't know exactly what that means, but I can tell you a fact our house is currently 1,201 square feet and it's not currently a mansion nor will it become one after these proposed additions. So the city's legislative intent was never meant to apply to small houses like ours perhaps it was bigger houses. I really can't speak to that. I just know that we're not a mansion Number two is also what you might call dead law.

After over 20 years of not enforcing this driveway structure rule, it is reasonable to possibly consider this as a dead law. And last but not least, how will this affect our neighbors? Pretty minimal, extremely minimal. Bumping out a garage to make it conforming makes only one foot further out than our duplex neighbor's garage. So you hardly would even notice the difference from the street.

The south side addition will face Gregory Street, and those neighbors are on the other side of Gregory Street since we have our corner lot. And those neighbors and our rear neighbor will be shielded from this addition by our existing fence and wall and landscaping. And when we set this up, we made sure with Wade our designer that the pitch and height of the addition will be in line with our current house.

We've spoken with all of our immediate neighbors and none have any issues with our plans. Thank you. I'm not sure if there's any questions at this point.

Where is the curb cut currently in the plan? Like where do you enter or what do you get onto the driveway?

Um, it's basically right in front of our garage. In

front of the garage?

There is a two-car garage that is shorter in depth but width wise there still legitimate 20 feet and the driveway flows from that garage right to the street we don't have any interface with Gregory with our driveway does that answer your question

yes sir

It's on Lark Ellen, just above the curve.

OK. Yep, got it.

And certainly Wade, more of our professional design houses, if you have questions for him as well, that's why I asked him to come.

Mm-hmm. Yes, it's actually like here

It seems that we have have to consider the issue of Setting a precedent in terms of giving a variance to one neighbor that's not being asked for or given to other neighbors.

Eugene, you can probably take a seat. OK.

OK, we'll return. If there are no questions, we will return to the commission. The garage expansion obviously does not impact Cover lot coverage, so that really is no longer an issue before us. Is that correct?

That's correct. It didn't even need to be

discussed. OK, so really all we are deciding is the expansion on the south side of the dining room.

That's the expansion that will increase the lot coverage to 42.35%, yes.

Do you have any? Any more questions for staff? Yes,

can I respond to a comment that you had made earlier sure Because I've I've had this come up before with variances and I want to make sure that as you're reviewing these I realize what staff is identifying in terms of our recommendation moving forward but you have made the statement saying that this would be potentially precedent-setting and In the variant section of our code it identifies in 10-2.2607 precedences, each application is reviewed on a case by case basis and the granting of a prior variance is not admissible evidence for the granting of a new variance so that basically takes away the idea of the precedent piece yeah each one has looked on its own merits

okay thank you yes

my question for staff Is there any different weighting or consideration on corner lots in the city code that we should be aware of?

They have the same setbacks and lot coverage. Generally, often a corner lot is larger but I mean there aren't different requirements for a corner lot now. Not that affects this situation.

And did I understand correctly that If we rejected this, we currently have a garage that's out of code. But nothing would be done with regard to that garage because it's been there for several years.

Well, two things. One is when I was giving my presentation, I stated that code compliance is now proactive and this would be investigated outside of this meeting. However, secondly the applicant stated that the garage expansion would be to create a conforming garage so there would no longer be a non-conforming situation. Something was I'll say that the garage size would no longer be a non-conforming situation

Any difference between permeable driveways or paved or concrete or you know some other material in any sort of a Consideration there at all on

coverage? The code does not differentiate. The driveway area is required to be a certain width, and in one situation, a certain length. And it's not differentiated when it comes to site coverage in the definition.

So yeah. Well, I have a paper copy of our code because I get to write in it and with suggestions of how to update it. And this definition would be first on the list because it doesn't say if you have alternative materials that it could be waived.

I think the reason for that is because there's still cars being parked on it. It's still a place to be covered. I'll turn this over to you. Sorry,

I mean, I'm more I've seen more of the I've had more experience in other jurisdictions where that's it really is a lot about the permeability of the site more than like Something that can be on top of it, you know, so even the less permeable material in some cases Might not be considered law coverage But As I said, those codes that I've interacted with have a more robust sort of like layering of there's this for law coverage. There's this for actually building coverage. So it's a little more specific which I think is to Katrina's point.

I just think it's unfortunate that we're at a variance level issue here. I agree with staff that we can't support the findings for the variance, but with that said, I think that our site coverage... We need to look at that definition. It hasn't been used this way in the past. I know that as a matter of fact. And also with the new laws that are in place right now, if you convert that garage to a second unit you don't even need parking.

You know, so it seems ridiculous that it's a variance to me given all the new laws that we have. People can put in four units on a lot and not have any parking at all. They have to park on the street. There's no driveways. So our code is because of the new laws, it's making these just so archaic. So it's unfortunate. The current code, in my opinion, it's there in black and white. And the variance findings I don't think I could support. So I would agree with staff on this.

Would you put that into a motion?

Well, my motion would be to approve Resolution. Denying variants VAR 2601 and design review permit 2607, and direct staff to prepare a resolution approving requested variants and design review request. No. No. No. Try again. Oh, OK. To approve the resolution in front of us denying the variance and the design review permit. That's the motion. Is there a second?

I will second that, yes.

Further discussion? Sherry, would you call the roll? Roschmidt. Yes. Chesley.

Abstain.

Stewart.

Yes.

Murphy. Yes

That was a hard one.

Hold on, hold on. Did we open this up for public comment?

Pardon?

This is a public hearing. Do we open this up for public comment?

No, we didn't.

Right. So we

do need to do that. And we do that now?

Yes, that's part of the actions that we need to do. OK.

Public comment.

I know we

went

back and forth with

questions. I have no loose lips on this. Sherry, is there anyone online? No. No one in the audience. Seeing none, we will close the public comment. Thank you.

But now I would call it to vote, because now you've actually officially taken action regarding that. Now

we have to do the vote again? Yes. OK,

Jerry,

would you do that vote again?

Roy Schmidt. Yes. Chesebro. Abstain. Stewart. Yes Murphy. Yes

Thank you. OK. Moving on. Oh,

the lead?

You said

the lead though? Yes So basically you're saying no to our grant request. Correct

OK. The next item is a design review permit for a residence located at 802 Grand Avenue, and could we have the staff report please?

Yes. Where's my share screen? Oh. It's not sharing.

Did you do share screen?

Well, I thought I did.

Do we have new equipment?

No, it's me. It's you. OK.

Is this your thing?

There we go. That's

it.

Thank you, seems to be a common occurrence. So this project is located at 802 Grand Avenue and the applicant is proposing to convert an existing 308 square foot garage into an art studio Which would eliminate required covered parking for a single family residence. For background information purposes, the current enclosed garage is substandard. The Municipal Code section 10-2-1404 requires a two car garage or carport with minimum interior dimensions of 20 by 20 feet. And the existing garage is approximately 14 by 22 feet, so accommodates a single car and it's up here on the screen.

The applicant is requesting to replace the required covered parking with uncovered tandem parking in the existing driveway and screen from view by an existing gate. You can see that also on the screen above Section 10-2-1406D of the code includes that requirements for enclosed garages may be waived by the director provided that the area devoted to parking is visually screened And this process would require a director's exemption.

However, the code in section 10-2-1403 requires that the Planning Commission review and consider tandem parking which is what's being requested in this case for the alternative parking. Section 10-2, 1802 regarding multiple permit applications requires that when you're filing more than one related application concurrently that the final decision is made by the highest level of authority which is you in this case, the Planning Commission because again they're proposing tandem parking to replace the covered parking.

The driveway here is 12 feet wide. There is a pop-out window that interrupts the width by one foot, leaving 11 feet clear where 10 feet is required for a single family residence and due to... Let's see. Oh, there was a question prior to the meeting regarding The reality of access and clearance for cars here. And so staff did talk to the applicant as well as the architect before the meeting, and I know that the architect is here. I'm not sure if the applicant is but What was determined or made clear is that there is a ditch on the east side of the driveway. That does not interrupt a 12-foot driveway. What does interrupt is a popout window on the side of the house, and again, that's one foot so we have 11 feet clear where 10 feet is required.

There was a question about some items, and you can see them in the photos in your plans regarding some items that are leaning up against the house. And those items are literally just leaning up against the house. It was indicated that they're trashed. Anyway, with this information, the gates are able to open up all the way and accommodate vehicles going through adequate space.

Because of the ability to screen the parking and to replace the non-conforming garage, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve this request. And we do have the applicant as well as the architect here. Yes, we do have the applicant as well as the architect here if you have questions for them or, of course, from me. Thank you. Any questions

for staff? No. OK, the applicant is welcome to address the commission.

Hello, my name is Micah Sessing. I am a representative and designer from McLeod Construction. Also our client Denise Connors is here. The driveway, just took measurements today is sufficient for a 10-foot clearance as Maura was saying. The garage is currently not being used and in a very dilapidated state so she would like to use the space and fix the garage and turn it into an art studio so it can be enjoyed.

Any questions for the designer?

No. I have a question. Is this site in a hazardous fire area? We all are. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

And is there plumbing? Can I just respond to that? There are areas that are, but this is not.

OK.

Is there plumbing in the garage? There's no plumbing proposed.

The topic of accessory dwelling units was brought up in the last application, and it was discussed between staff and the applicant when they initially submitted the application. If this existing non-conforming garage were being turned into an ADU for instance we wouldn't be here talking about tandem parking. They wouldn't have to provide any parking at all. But they are, as Micah already said, they're not providing any and there isn't any existing plumbing in the structure.

Yeah it's you didn't want to sink Just an art studio

OK, no other questions? Thank you. We'll open it up to public hearing now. I don't have any cards. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to address this item? Is there anyone online?

No.

Then I will close the public hearing. We will return the discussion to the commission Anybody got any comments, questions, problems? Motions. Well,

sorry I don't know. I just have a question about consistency and it would just be interesting to hear from the last project that we just discussed to this project where we kind of have to make a choice between non-conforming garage or making one conforming or whatever. It'd be interesting to hear a little narrative or perspective on that.

So the last project had a potentially unpermitted interior remodel that made a garage non-conforming. This is an existing, non-conforming garage built in 1957 I think that was built this way. And we're not looking at something that I thought you might be bringing into this and perhaps you're not is also like lot coverage But there are no additions being proposed in this situation. So we're not looking at lot coverage. We're looking at Turning a non-conforming garage into a studio and having the parking outside yeah, and with it being a required screening

Yeah, I know the purpose of my question is to get what could be perceived as a contradiction on the record. So I think your comments cover that. Thanks. Thank you.

And also this one is not a variance.

Correct.

So there's very specific findings for a variance and this is all accommodated within the code itself?

Right, and the findings are included in your resolution and staff report. Staff was able to recommend approval based on findings.

So we're going from outside parking to continued outside parking, basically? OK. Is anyone ready to create a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve the resolution as it's stated.

I second.

Further

discussion? Hearing none, Sherry could you call the roll?

Rai Schmidt? Yes. Chesebro? Yes. Stewart? Yes Murphy? Yes

Okay moving on to item four

OK. Could we have the staff? Yeah, hold tight there. Let's let Katrina

move.

There we go.

OK.

All right. Staff report. Thank you. Good evening, Commission. My name is Lucas Seibert. I'm the Community Development Director here for the city of Ojai for the audience before me as well as the audience online just to state the record. The item before you tonight is a item that was continued to a future meeting where the commission had taken an action to bring forward a resolution approving what is a phasing project for cottages located at 312 West Alisa Street. So, the project that was discussed on September 2nd at this meeting as a public hearing item. This item is up for discussion tonight There is a resolution before you tonight that does identify and capture what was discussed at the September 2nd meeting.

In addition to that, staff took it a step further and take a look at all of the questions that were raised at that meeting. And as we have done in the past and remaining consistent with that, responded to those questions. Provided those as a part of the attachment that you see before you tonight for clarification just to provide additional context for the record for this item. Just to give you a little bit of history for this, for you just as a reminder, as a refresher, as well as for the audience.

This is the cottages project, which is a part of a 12-unit four phase development that is ongoing. Currently they finished the first phase are working on the second phase and in doing so they recognized an opportunity for the fourth phase to run parallel with the second phase obviously or not obviously but To provide additional context, the fourth phase is really meant to place two units and then to stub out utilities because the issue with utilities as the complexity of this project just continues to be very interesting considering it's 12 units.

Is the utilities actually go through phase 3 which cannot begin until phase 2 and potentially phase 4 depending on your determination tonight are done. So what that means is the action that you're looking to consider for tonight would be having phase two, which is currently under construction run parallel with phase four And having conversations with the applicant I see mr. Becker is online He's available for a question. He may have something to say tonight he may not Having those two run concurrent there is some time savings Then it is in the tune of about three to six months Is what he's he's thinking in his estimates and talking to the?

the on-site manager Additionally, there was additional context provided regarding the foundational work and the noise and kind of the way in which that foundational work is to be completed. I did a little bit of research to kind of understand how those pins are placed into the ground which was provided within the staff report tonight as well. So with that if the Commission has any questions of staff, I'm certainly available to answer And then obviously we'll need to open it up for a public comment as well.

And then I would also invite the applicant to Respond as well tonight

Okay Do you have any questions at this time for staff? No questions okay Jeff, would you care to address the commission now or after public hearing?

Good evening planning commissioners and city staff. I'm sorry I couldn't attend in person. I am traveling on the East Coast but happy to answer any questions you may have.

Okay thank you I will open it to the public comment section. And I have a card from Anita Cram.