Loading...
PC Minutes 2007-04-171 1 1 ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. The motion passed on a 5/0 voice vote. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2007 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Ray presiding; also present were Commissioners Barneich, Keen, Marshall and Tait. Staff members in attendance were Acting Director /Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman, and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. AGENDA REVIEW: Administrative items were moved on consensus before Item II.A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Marshall made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Barneich to approve the minutes of April 3, 2007 with the following corrections: • Page 1, under approval of minutes for the March 20 meeting, Commissioner Barneich's comments should read: "People with mental illnesses probably already live in the our neighborhoods." I . A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Kevin Sargent, of Transitions Mental Health Association, thanked Planning Commissioners for approving their new location and presented them with decorative plants from their clients as a token of appreciation. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Letter dated April 2, 2007 from Michele and David Norwood regarding Tract 1998. 2. Letter dated April 13, 2007 from Lynn Titus regarding Item II.A. (Plot Plan Review Case No. 06 -009). 3. Letter dated April 15, 2007 from Colleen Martin regarding Item II.A. (Plot Plan Review Case No. 06 -009). IV. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION/ NOTICES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE APRIL 3, 2007: Case No 1. VSR 07 -002 PPR 07 -001 2. MEX 07- 003 ) p. Ignacio Carrasco Maria Selden udressp 1190 Fair Oaks Ave. 579 Traffic Way Description Construction of a 400 sf detached garage with a 330 sf studio apartment above Exception to City parking standards for a single - family residence Actions,. A A Planner T. Montgomery T. Montgomery 'Case -No APPS,, Address "; • � Description Temporary use of Nelson Green for the annual March of Dimes Walk America Action A PI "inner M. Meier 3. TUP 07 -005 John Soto/ March of Dimes Starts and ends at Nelson Green 4. TUP 07 -004 Virginio Reyes, Costenitas Catering Valley Road Temporarily locate a catering truck across from the high school (M -F, 12- 1:30pm) D M. Meier 5. PPR 07 -003 Wendy Stolper, Design Concepts, Inc. 1532 W. Branch Street Approval to locate a kitchen and bath design showroom in the Oak Park Plaza A J. Bergman 6. PPR 07 -004 Farmer Boy Produce 1526 W. Branch Street Specialty grocery store in Oak Park Plaza A J. Bergman PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 17, 2007 PAGE 2 A sixth administrative item was distributed to Commissioners at the start of the meeting. There were no questions on the administrative items, so they were all approved as presented. II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. PLOT PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 06 -009, APPLICANT — TONY JANOWICZ, LOCATION — 795 CHERRY STREET Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon presented the staff report for consideration of a proposal to demolish an existing residence and accessory structures, and construct a new residence and garage. The applicant has addressed Planning Commission requests from the previous meetings of December 5, 2006 and January 16, 2007. She described the changes, including historical significance, agricultural buffer, road easement dedications, and drainage. Condition 48 has been changed to read, "The applicant shall retain all increased stormwater on- site ", and condition 46 has been deleted because it duplicates condition 33. Staff answered questions from the Commission for clarification on: a recommendation from the County Agricultural Commissioner on the ag buffer, the reference to code regarding eminent domain, condition 33 and the process of sewer line installation, landscaping consistency with Cherry Creek (as shown on Exhibit B -2) and need (or lack thereof) for screening if this project is developed before installation of Cherry Creek landscape screening, McClanahan and Dixson's request for the 6' tall no -climb fence, initial study correction of 54' from ag land, necessity (or lack thereof) for additional septic system capacity, the meaning of MM 12.1 and 12.2 initial study language "bonding for street improvements ", 35' wide landscape buffer, possible function of an assessment district for the buffer, removal of existing house prior to construction of the replacement house, no requirement for ARC review before City Council review, acceptance of Neighborhood Plan for both subareas 1 and 2, location of Mrs. Titus' house from the proposed house, the meaning of the staff report reference to "replacement house ", transferring density credits from this parcel to Janowicz's other property located further back on Lierly Lane, continuation of the sidewalk to Lierly Lane and proximity to the no -climb fence, drainage and installation of the sidewalk. Chair Ray opened the public hearing for public comment. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 17, 2007 Chair Ray closed the public hearing for public comment. PAGE 3 Mark Vasquez, applicant's representative, agreed with Planning Commission conditions as previously requested. He answered Commissioner questions with regard to transferring density to Mr. Janowicz's other property and how that relates to the proposed minimum lot size of 8,000 sf within subarea 2, square footage of each house, plant selection for the ag buffer now that David Foote has been hired, lack of water most of the time in the shallow drainage basin, capacity in a large storm, plant size, and drainage to accommodate future sidewalk installation. The house placement and size is as far away from the Ag property as possible, while still allowing for active outdoor areas, but it mostly allows living space inside rather than outside. David Foote, Landscape Architect, answered Commissioner questions in regards to the buffer, plant size, plant selection based on average homeowner habits, tree selection and size vs. rate of growth, timing to mature screening, placement of plants near shallow drainage basin, reasoning for choosing Bottlebrush and acceptance of Evergreen Pear instead. Lynn Titus, 404 Lierly Lane, expressed concern and opposition against a block wall fence extending from the Cherry Creek project and /or in the ag buffer. She noted that from past history, drainage shouldn't be an issue in this location. Damien Mavis, Cherry Creek developer, spoke in support of this project, noting the infrastructure benefits, good integration with subarea 1, mitigation of development issues for subarea 2, benefits of the house being farther from the farm, and house size similarity to his adjacent project. Ruel Estes, 811 E. Cherry, spoke in support of the project. However, the Cherry extension should be 24' wide and there shouldn't be a sidewalk, in order to maintain the rural character of the area. There's not a drainage problem now and his next -door property isn't clay — it's sandy loam. He agreed with Mrs. Titus' comments on the house size and need to locate it with adequate distance in- between. The ag buffer will only protect the farmer, because people will still be exposed on the road. Commissioners should leave the planning to City staff and not micromanage lesser issues like tree and plant selection, which is a waste of tax dollars. Tony Janowicz, 447 Lierly Lane, (applicant), discussed the project history for new Commissioners, including the benefits of road improvement for fire and life safety issues. He answered Commissioner questions regarding awareness of ag buffer guidelines prior to purchase, transferring density to his other parcel, and not having a block wall in the plans for his project. Commission comments and questions: Barneich: • Her reasoning for discussing plant selection is due to her background and concern for neighbors, so they're not looking at dead trees most of the year. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 17, 2007 PAGE 4 • She's concerned about property owner maintenance of ag buffer landscaping, especially after time passes. It may need to fall with the City instead. • This plan is better than others, since it moved the house further from ag land, but the house is too large and the intensity of the site is too much. • She could approve the project with either a density transfer or decreased square footage of the house (1200 sf), for several reasons. o The house replacement should be with something more comparable with the existing house (1200 sf is more affordable to rent or own). o A smaller house would better preserve Mrs. Titus' view. o A smaller house would be a less intense use of the home, because with more square footage, there will be additional occupants. Keen: • What are the undergrounding requirements? Mr. Devens replied that it would just be the service drops to the house. The adjacent subarea 1 is undergrounding the utilities on the opposite side of dirt Cherry. o Will the poles behind this property be undergrounded? Mr. Devens replied that he believes those poles serve the Peterson house in phase 1 and would have to go underground. • With the number of times this has been massaged, it's become a very good project for the property, particularly the Cherry improvements and location in order to extend the buffer. • It wouldn't be logical consideration to plant the buffer and have to wait 5 years for a building permit, because that would be a taking. There are people living in the existing house with no buffer, so there's no reason that with education and information new occupants couldn't move in without the buffer being fully mature. • The basin is just for runoff for this property. Does it take care of the street runoff or will that flow to subarea 1? Mr. Devens replied that will flow to subarea 1. Tait: • He had problems making finding of approval #2. The new mitigation measures help, but the ag buffer is supposed to help ensure public health and safety, so he still has some doubts. • Council should consider a density transfer, because this may be a precedent setting item. • This is a new residential unit - not just a replacement house. It requires demo and building permits, so it's subject to ag buffer regulations that there be no new construction unless there's no other economically viable use of the property. He doesn't see another economically viable use, except for the density transfer. • The ag buffer extension will do well and is consistent with the Firma program. • 35' may be sufficient once plants are mature as deemed sufficient in size by a biological expert, and only then would it be safe for residents to move in. • He appreciated mitigation measures 8.1 and 8.2 regarding noise. • The no -climb fence on the ag side is a good idea to help reduce impacts. Marshall: • He's fascinated that the project is this complex. Replacing a SFR on an existing SFR lot should be ministerial in many ways, but he understands the need for 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 17, 2007 PAGE 5 additional processing due to the unique location. The key is the size of the parcel vs. the buffer, but the point of the ag buffer is to minimize (not eliminate all) potential conflicts. This plan does what is reasonable for this parcel to minimize those potential conflicts as much as possible. • The house size is reasonable for the lot and comparable to neighboring houses. • He liked the density transfer idea, but appreciated that it's already been explored and doesn't work in this case. Ray: • She felt the applicant made all the previously requested changes to the ag buffer and no additional comments were needed. • The density transfer idea is intriguing, but probably won't work here, since Council wants it rural and neighbors don't want cluster development with smaller lot sizes. • Change the drainage plan to reflect the sidewalk requirement, add the extension of the no -climb fence, and replace Bottlebrush with Evergreen Pear. Commissioner Marshall made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen, to approve Plot Plan Review Case No. 06 -009 with the following modifications: • Delete condition 46. • Modify condition 48 as referenced by staff. • Extend the no -climb fence along the south side of the improved East Cherry Avenue and the permanent Agricultural Preserve to Lierly Lane. • Redesign the drainage basin to accommodate the sidewalk extension. • Staff shall check the eminent domain reference. • Replace the Bottlebrush with Evergreen Pears. After discussion, the last condition was modified by Commissioners Marshall and Barneich to instead read: • Additional species than Bottlebrush shall be considered by the Landscape Architect. RESOLUTION 07 -2030 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLOT PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 06 -009, LOCATED AT 795 EAST CHERRY AVENUE, APPLIED FOR BY TONY JANOWICZ The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Marshall, Keen, and Chair Ray ABSENT: None NOES: Commissioners Barneich and Tait the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 14th day of April 2007. 7:30 p.m. The Commission took a 5- minute break. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 17, 2007 PAGE 6 B. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 07 -002; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITYWIDE Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman presented the staff report for consideration of proposed minor amendments to Chapter 16.60 (Signs) of Title 16 of the Municipal Code. The majority of changes are minor in nature. He discussed them one by one. Staff answered questions from the Commission for clarification square footage of each sign or total signs, the possibility of new restrictions driving away new businesses, recent complaints about hand -held signs, enforcement procedures, ARC - recommended allowances for incidental and supplemental signs, Highway 101 right -of -way determination, and exemption for non - profit fundraisers like car washes. There was nobody in the audience left for public comment, so Commissioners continued with both questions and comments: Keen: • He gave a history of neon signage, noting that safety was not a consideration when the transparent covering of tubes was added to code. o Previously, it was felt that Arroyo Grande was different in a good way, because it didn't have the neon of bigger cities. One way to allow neon but keep that subtle difference is by using it in backlit signs (like Santa Lucia Bank). o The covered tube clause came from a sign application for Last Chance Liquor who wanted to hang beer signs in the windows, and that was tried as a means to keep them out, but it didn't work. Now, their windows are 100% covered by neon signs. Several others have gotten out of hand with neon use. o Then businesses started outlining windows in neon and there was a big discussion on whether it was a sign or architectural enhancement with Subway. They've since taken it all out. o The allowable neon accessory signs were for "open" signs, because it's hard to see a cardboard door sign, but now they're getting bigger and not just informational. The proposal suggests allowing "closed" signs, but he didn't see any in the City (just "open" signs turned on or off). o There can be safety issues with neon — for instance Little Caesar's has a neon sign hanging from two little chains over the front doors. If something happened to the chains, it could be a problem. o Planning Commission discussed the Five Cities Center Planned Sign Program in depth. They decided the size should be proportional to the buildings, but large enough to be seen from highway. All had to be backlit signs that were compatible with each other, but could be made individually. Hollywood Video proposed blue and red neon lighting all the way around the building claiming it was part of the corporate logo, but they still went in the space without approval for the extra neon. o For some reason Council allowed Cookie Crock to use exposed neon, along with a few other businesses, but it doesn't necessarily give them more customer traffic and it doesn't fit with desirable City character. 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 17, 2007 PAGE 7 o Neon doesn't need to be prohibited, but previous deciding bodies made specific decisions about not having exposed neon and not changing the City character. o He's ready to change the sign areas and heights as proposed, but would like more discussion on accessory signs and keeping them in context for what the City should look like. Barneich: • The hand -held sign prohibition may not need additional wording, since the ordinance is specific to commercial signs. Either way, there needs to be inter- departmental communication on weekend enforcement, especially. She verified that the Planned Sign Programs take precedence over the development code. • Do the 50 -foot signs include the pole? Yes, from top to bottom. • When do you think a more comprehensive revision will be worked on? Possibly this year - depending on workload issues and calendaring of public workshops. • Should section 16.60.050(A.1.c.) on exempt signs have "and 7 days afterward" lined out? That will stand. • When ARC reviews signs on Branch Street in the Village, members tend to allow the same maximums as on Grand and don't use discretion as allowed in the Design Guidelines. With the future updates, the Village should be separated, especially in Tight of the pedestrian orientation. • Staff should consider using language limiting signage square footage based on linear feet, as opposed to (or in addition to) "incremental square feet per linear foot." • Is code enforcement complaint driven or do they actively look for violations? Generally it is a complaint driven process. • She's happy that staff is working on this initial cleanup. • It seems that lately there have been more temporary banners, flags, etc., and many over the 60 -day limit. That should be tightened up, but enforcement may be difficult. Her suggestion is changing it from 60 days to 30 days. • Signs can make or break a commercial section of the City. • She supports item V prohibiting handheld signs. • She noted that flashing and animated signs and electronic reader boards are prohibited, but she wonders if the electronic signs around town fall under the category of electronic reader boards boards. • She supports prohibition of inflatable displays. Tait: • Allow nonprofit signs for fundraisers. • There should be future discussion about electronic reader board signs. • He stressed the importance of sign introduction sections E and G to 'encourage urban character with a minimum of clutter' and 'encourage pedestrian scale'. Marshall: • He supports getting the process underway, but is concerned that other proposed changes aren't just "minor" housekeeping. For instance, he supports the reduction in height of major tall signs, but feels like business owners should be PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 17, 2007 RESOLUTION 07 -2031 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF ARROYO GRANDE AMEND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 16.50 - SIGNS The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Chair Ray, Commissioners Marshall, Barneich, and Tait ABSENT: None NOES: Commissioner Keen the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 14th day of April 2007. PAGE 8 notified about the change. It would probably be okay with the su alternative processing, since there may be some special cases. 99ested o He's a big opponent of sign clutter, except when traveling and lookin f food and facility signs, so consideration should be taken for tourists. g or o The discretionary permit process is good for the shorter signs, so that property owners don't cut down trees to show off signage better. • He appreciated Commissioner Keen's background information on neon signs. • He agreed with comments about hand -held signs, but allow nonprofit fundraiser signs without creating an additional permit process for them if they don't need it now. • He agrees with changing temporary sign limits from 60 to 30 days. • Due to reliance on ARC input, he suggested they be involved with review of the sign ordinance, as they should have valuable input. Ray: • Why would an applicant need a CUP instead of just a minor exception for higher signs? Normally, higher signs are proposed for new commercial buildings. Also, the minor exception process is for deviations of 10% or less. • The sign code review is well overdue and comments have gone past what is proposed tonight. She's comfortable with staff recommendations and would like to keep alternatives in as proposed. Additional changes can be proposed at future workshops, as additional business, community and staff input is necessary. Commissioner Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to approve Development Code Amendment Case No. 07 -002 with the following modifications: • Include the alternatives as proposed. • Add an exemption for non - profits as needed. Discussion: Commissioner Marshall requested adding a change for the time period of temporary signs from 60 to 30 days, but Commissioner Ray felt that would be more appropriate with the major amendments to the sign program that will be proposed later, so it wasn't added. 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 17, 2007 III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: There will be a special meeting of the HRC on Tuesday, April 24 from 1:30 -3:30 p.m. to discuss locations to visit during the bus tour in May. Planning Commissioners are welcome at both meetings. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 pm. ATTEST: KATHY DOZA for LY EARDON- SMITH, SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: KELL H F AC�PI G C s" MUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR (Minutes approved at the PC meeting of May 1, 2007) PAGE 9