Loading...
PC Minutes 2006-12-051 CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Fellows presiding; also present were Commissioners Brown, Parker, Ray and Tait. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director Rob Strong, Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, Assistant Planner Jim Bergman, Planning Intern, Megan Meier, and Public Works Engineer Victor Devens. ANNOUNCEMENTS: AGENDA REVIEW: No changes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. I.A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2006 6:00 P.M. I.B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS (received after Agenda preparation): 1. Letter dated November 13, 2006 regarding Cherry Creek Subarea 2 (previously distributed at PC meeting of 11/21/06). 2. Letter dated November 30, 2006 regarding Cherry Creek Subarea 2 from Damien Mavis, Bradley Vernon, and Cliff Branch. 3. Email dated December 4, 2006 regarding Plot Plan Review 06 -009 from Lynn Titus to Kelly Heffernon. 4. Letter received December 5, 2006 in support of Applebees from Barbara Fullerton. 5. Letter dated December 1, 2006 against Applebees (from anonymous). 6. Fax dated December 6, 2006 (received December 5, 2006) regarding Cherry Creek Subarea 2 from Marianna McClanahan and Sara Dickens. 7. Letter dated December 4, 2006 regarding Cherry Creek Subarea 2 from Byron Grant (distributed by Nora Looney just before the meeting started). 8. Letter dated December 5, 2006 in support of the PPR at 795 E. Cherry Ave. (distributed by Tony Janowicz during public comment for that item below). II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 06 -009, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 06 -003, and PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM CASE NO. 06 -002; APPLICANT RCI REALTY, LLC (APPLEBEES); LOCATION — 1400 E. GRAND AVENUE. Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman, presented the staff report. He described the plans including pedestrian walkways, easement, landscaping, colors and materials, signage (including neon and L.E.D.), and ARC's reviews on November 6 and December 4, 2006. Staff answered Commission questions for clarification of the staff report regarding: coverings over neon letters (safety vs. intensity issue), intensity of LED lighting, roof over the trash enclosure, higher replacement ratio for tree mitigation, preferred driveway location in lieu of pedestrian safety, drainage capacity in the drop inlet, filtration before PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2006 reaching Poplar Basin, making dollar amount the same in MM4.1 and condition #62, flooding (history vs. future), driveway at Gill's market, compatibility between Gill's market stone wall and stone on Applebees, parking adequacy versus chance for additional greenspace to allow for stormwater percolation, view /location of trash enclosure, filtering system for odors, trash pickup details, discussion of intent for 20% neon code maximum, construction days as listed in condition #53 and mm7.1 don't agree, cueing problems from street into driveway, signage being within allowable maximum, changing wording from "should" to "shall" (multiple conditions), location of demarcated pedestrian sidewalk to the restaurant across the driveway, environmental determination as not a wetland environment, difference between MM 4.1 and 4.2, and the necessity of MM 5.1 and asbestos. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. Mike Bertaccini, EDA Civil Engineer, gave his input on the pedestrian crossing and parking layout. It was studied at length, and a compromise was reached with other center owners to allow for a line of site down drive aisles instead of normal parking at the side of the building. By placing the walk offset from the door, people are less likely to wander out while waiting for a table and make incorrect safety assumptions about being in a crosswalk. Per the Santa Ana study, more pedestrians are hit and killed in crosswalks than anywhere else. Additional lighting will be considered. Thomas James (TJ) Fitzpatrick, Restaurant Concepts representative for Applebees, answered Commission questions regarding the trash area design, recycling pickup, LED vs. neon in signs, covering neon channel letters, parking adequacy, grease trap maintenance, odor issues, parking lot and building lighting, trellises on the large expanse of stucco and /or additional street trees, flooding, hood maintenance, chain standardization and experience. Chair Fellows closed the public hearing for public comment. PAGE 2 Commission comments on the project: Ray: • This is a good addition in the right location in the City. It will create jobs, it's a good family restaurant, and it will bring in additional City revenue. • There should be a third street tree or a trellis with vines to break up the massing. Brown: • He appreciated staff's efforts at bringing people together on this project. Parker • She agreed about the location and is excited that Applebees is coming. • She also appreciated staff's efforts on Grand Avenue improvements. • Change conditions of approval (10, 14, 15, and 16) from "should" to "shall ", • While somewhat concerned with safety at the drive access, staff and the applicant have addressed this as best they can. Spencer's deserves due consideration. 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2006 PAGE 3 • While she normally advocates for more green /open space, she understands the need for adequate parking (clients and employees). • She was concerned about the neon, but is okay with it after driving down Grand and seeing that it isn't overwhelming in Arroyo Grande and it brightens things up. • She can go either way regarding encasing the neon letters for safety. • The LED is better than neon for the red stripe, especially since it will also look red during the day. • An additional tree is preferable to vines that can get woody or leggy. • She likes the location of the building and parking on Grand, and supports the project. Tait: • This is a great location, especially being walking distance to the senior complex. • Like Chili's, it is a needed benefit for the community. • He's fine with the signs as proposed. • LED is preferable for both the apple and border. • He's okay with the current crosswalk alignment, and strongly encourages good lighting for safety. • If the existing Sycamores can't be transplanted, they should be replaced at 2:1 or 3:1 • MM 5.1 needs to be changed to agree with Condition 5b. Fellows: • The double detector check valve should be inconspicuous to the public, low and painted a neutral color, screened, or even located inside. • This is a much better use for prime retail property than an unused basin. • The community can use another good restaurant. He appreciated the striped awnings. • He leaves decision on the LED strip to the ARC. • He also encouraged good lighting on the walkways. Check that it's not blocked by trees. • Discuss adding a flowering vine over the trash enclosure with ARC, unless it would interfere with ventilation. • Since there aren't many warm evenings, there may need to be additional indoor waiting areas or outdoor space heaters. • The sponge area beneath the street trees should be more like 3x6 (instead of 5x5), so they're more parallel to the curb and there's less concrete to crack. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray, to approve Conditional Use Permit Case No. 06 -009, Lot Line Adjustment Case No. 06 -003, and Planned Sign Program Case No. 06 -002 with the following provisions: • If trees cannot be placed in front corner as suggested by ARC, consider some type of vine or trellis work. • Hours of construction need to be consistent within the resolution. • MM 5.1 needs to be consistent with Condition 5.b. • Change "shoulds" to "shalls ". PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2006 RESOLUTION NO. 06-2020 The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Ray, Parker, Tait, and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 5 day of December 2006. PAGE 4 Discussion: In response to question by Commissioner Fellows, Mr. Strong replied that the Police Department will review the lighting plan (including over the walkway in the parking lot). In response to Commissioner Tait, Commissioner Brown added to his motion and Commissioner Ray agreed to: • The mitigation measure for sycamores to be moved shall be increased due to the size of trees. and adopt: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 06 -009; LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 06 -003 AND PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 06 -002, LOCATED AT 1400 EAST GRAND AVENUE, APPLIED FOR BY RCI REALITY, LLC Rob Strong recused himself from the meeting due to conflict of interest for the next item. B. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06 -004; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — SUB -AREA 2 (CHERRY CREEK). Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, presented the staff report for this zoning change from Residential Rural (RR) to Single - Family Residential (SF). Staff answered Commission questions for clarification of the staff report regarding state limits on downzoning; state allowance to consider environmental constraints; timeliness or urgency of rezoning; ability to build out to 4.5 units /acre; concern for lack of environmental review for future development; using eminent domain for all of dirt Cherry vs. only the Subarea 1 portion; similarity of planning issues in both subareas; City Council's and City Attorney's reasons for separating Subarea 2 from Subarea 1; buffer distance in Subarea 2 of 100' (General Plan minimum) vs. 130' (NP overlay minimum); RRM's estimate of Subarea 2 buildout vs. what Subarea 2 property owners' plans are; concern for developers' sense of entitlement to buildout at 4.5 un. /ac.; applicability of the "categorically exempt" environmental determination done solely for the purpose of changing zoning vs. for each future individual project; possibility for mitigated negative declarations to be done for future small projects; lack of additional information from RRM regarding the map that shows 2.0 un. /ac. buildout; need for changing the General Plan if consensus is to change zoning to RS (Residential Suburban) instead of SF; CEQA exemption 152828T; ability to condition subdivisions vs. plot plan reviews for road right of way; City Council majority opinion on "Medium —Low Density "; 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2006 Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. PAGE 5 environmental review of new single family residences being built in Subarea 2; and necessity for conditions to have an applicable nexus with each project. Nora Looney, 444 Lierly Lane (in Subarea 2), spoke in support of rezoning as recommended by staff and consistent with the General Plan. She read a letter dated November 13, 2006 from other property owners in Subarea 2 supporting it also. She also read a letter dated December 4, 2006 from Byron Grant (on file at CDD) against downzoning. Her potential buildout at 4.5 units /acre is 3 lots and they wouldn't demo their own custom home. Downzoning would cause them to lose one of those lots. Tony Janowicz, 445 Lierly Lane, spoke in support of staff's recommended rezoning and stated that each parcel should be considered on a case by case basis. Existing owners know they won't be able to buildout to 4.5 un. /ac. and they won't destroy their custom homes in order to build more units. He'd be willing to sign a deed restriction to limit the number of new lots to three. Colleen Martin, 855 Olive Street, requested the record reflect her concern that these Planning Commission minutes be sent to City Council in plenty of time to consider before their own deliberations on this item. Zoning could be different for different properties. She's aware of the concern regarding cluster development from merging two parcels and doing a PUD. At 4.5 du. /ac., constraints would have to be considered. Ownership changes over time, but when considering zoning, the current owners need to be considered as well as future ones. Transitional zoning is a good idea (from urban to ag). At 2.2 un. /ac., all the properties would qualify for secondary units. Damien Mavis, co -owner of Subarea 1, spoke on behalf of the Subarea 1 owners. They have a vested interest in keeping it nice and building nice homes. It's logical to continue SF zoning into Subarea 2 consistent with the General Plan. The residents are in favor. While difficult to achieve 4.5 ac. /un. density, the zoning makes it much easier to develop as far as minimum lot frontage, lot depth and lot size. It's actually easier to avoid the PUD (clustering) and follow the Development Code this way. The natural barriers will keep the average lot size up and average density down. The General Plan says nothing about splitting Subarea 1 into a different density than Subarea 2, and it would be difficult to make separate findings to downzone Subarea 2. Downzoning encourages sprawl. This is an infill area and always will be. The Subarea 1 development ended up at 3.3 un. /ac. and it's unlikely to do a cluster development in Subarea 2 at more than that. Karen Estes, 811 E. Cherry, believes they should at least have the option to build up to 4.5 du. /ac. When an area is downzoned, it increases the cost of each house. .There are problems in the City with the lack of affordable housing. Each property owner should be allowed to build up to what they can with appropriate Planning Commission PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2006 PAGE 6 review. If they can only build a small amount, it doesn't restrict others from developing and creating more affordable options. Chair Fellows closed the public hearing for public comment. Commission comments on the project: Parker: • It's noteworthy that of 10 parcels, some could build out to 4.5 du /ac., but others couldn't; about half of them could be affected by environmental constraints. • She has a problem with clustering and is concerned that with 4.5 du. /ac., developers will feel they have an entitlement and won't acknowledge environmental restraints, so they'll come in with very dense PUD's. • She agrees with Mayor Ferrara that density should slow down towards the east near ag land. • She's concerned applicants will not understand when told about natural constraints if they feel they're entitled to build to the maximum density (4.5 du. /ac.) It's important to be honest with them up front, or it will be hard to work with them. If half of them can build up that far, but the others can't build at all, it doesn't seem fair. • She felt she swung around from first comments above, because at the same time, she wouldn't want to sideline those who could build up to 4.5 du. /ac. Each property needs to be looked at individually as plans come in. Brown: • He agrees with Ms. Parker that it's bad to create a false sense of entitlement. • He's not willing to vote tonight based on available information and would like staff to get definitive information in regards to changing zoning based on the State approved Housing Element. • When they did the Neighborhood Plan (NP), a 130' ag buffer line was drawn across Subarea 2 and Mr. Estes was not comfortable with that. Therefore, the NP for Subarea 2 wasn't flushed out enough to validate 4.5 du. /ac. • He would like a survey of what property owners want to do before changing the zoning. • There's no indication of friendly condemnation on dirt Cherry continuing through Subarea 2. That's important, so whatever Council does with Subarea 2 rezoning, he would like friendly condemnation to go all the way through. Tait: • He agrees they need to take property owners' plans to heart. • At the same time, zoning comes first. • He would have liked somebody to have mapped out the constraints on Subarea 2. • In an ideal world, it's jine to let natural constraints dictate density, but it may not actually work that way. • The current Planning Commission and City Council will uphold the constraints (creek riparian setbacks and ag buffer to protect citizens and the environment), 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2006 but he's not sure about future Commissioners and Council members. RS zoning may act as a safeguard for the future. • It's wise to consider the proposal of 2.0 du. /ac. • Councilmembers Costello and Arnold and Mayor Ferrara expressed desire for Medium -Low density. • Guthrie discussed transitional zoning as it relates to adjacent ag use, and that relates to General Plan Ag 5.3 (land use conversions against land designated ag ). PAGE 7 • Things need to be researched more, including current landowners' plans. Ray: • After considering the staff report, she agreed density should be 4.5 du. /ac. With the public testimony and Commissioner views, while there have been valid arguments for 2 du. /ac., she still feels it should be 4.5 because of following: o To match the zoning of Subareas 1 and 2 ultimately guarantees the transitional nature of Subarea 2. Because lot size and maximum buildout are so varied, it guarantees variety. o She would need to have a really good reason to take away rights of property owners, and she doesn't see a compelling argument to do so. None of the properties can subdivide to 4.5 du. /ac., so the question is just how much can they build. She understands the reason for a blanket 2.5 du. /ac., but environmental constraints are so strong, there's no need to take it away from property owners who can do more. o Discussion with current property owners is too mercurial. What one homeowner wants today may be different tomorrow, as is nature of personal property owner rights. Current owners shouldn't have to sign anything (deed restrictions). o There is an expectation when somebody buys a home of what they can do. That expectation is also important to us as a City. o The possibility of cluster development isn't inherently wrong; the Planning Commission would have to review the project. She doesn't want to downzone just for fear of cluster development later. o The extensive environmental restraints will keep density down. o The false sense of entitlement is very valid, but it doesn't reflect the City's honesty. People should be trusted to take the zoning and do what's necessary for the City. Subarea 1 testifies that the process works. o There have been many PUD's and the process is getting better — like with the recent change adhering to setbacks of adjacent properties. That will really apply here. o She's not in favor of downzoning and agrees with the General Plan at 4.5 du. /ac. Fellows: • Whenever considering a project, Commissioners have to consider first what's best for the community. They may get a 100 - signature petition, but they have to keep things in context. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2006 The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Tait, and Chair Fellows NOES: Commissioner Parker and Ray ABSENT: None PAGE 8 • Subarea 2 borders the creek to the north and east, the Caldwell trust, and has an ag buffer. He disagrees with Ms. Scot - Graham's argument that high density would save ag land here, because in this location it's a threat to ag and the creek. • He also disagrees that high density will make homes more affordable. That would be true in other areas, but wouldn't be a large factor here. • He's always felt that it makes good sense to do transitional zoning. He doesn't agree that variety inside a border constitutes that. There should be more density on one side and lower density toward the ag land and creek to diminish those threats. • Three of five Councilmembers requested Commissioners to consider RS zoning, but that hasn't been done tonight, and it needs further study. "No City shall reduce the residential density to any parcel unless the City makes certain findings." Staff needs to consider it and he's in favor of RS zoning at this point. His uncertainty is if staff can suggest the finding there's no net loss of housing capacity. He needs more information before voting. • People would consider higher density as an entitlement, and zoning is the only way to guarantee that it's lower. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to continue Development Code Amendment Case No. 06 -004 for further analysis, not particularly to RS or Low - Medium density zoning, but based on the question of whether lower density can be considered based on the Housing Element; also, staff shall come forth in writing with a description of how environmental constraints would be the same or different in Subarea 2 as in Subarea 1 (because there may be more constraints in Subarea 2, thereby justifying transitional zoning). C. PLOT PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 06 -009; APPLICANT — TONY JANOWICZ; LOCATION — 795 CHERRY STREET. Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, presented the staff report. She answered Commission questions for clarification of the staff report regarding: no Planning Commission review requirement if he was only doing an addition; the only difference in the project with different zoning would be setbacks; the distance of the new structure from ag land (a little over 70'); the LSA letter and adding conditions to the project regarding cultural resources survey; handling asbestos during demolition; the ag buffer as the "mechanism to minimize potential conflicts between agricultural and non- agricultural land uses "; consideration of the demo and re -build project as a new "use" vs. as a new "structure" and the associated interpretation of the General Plan and Development Code; legal non - conforming status of existing structure and allowance to 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2006 PAGE 9 rebuild a duplicate structure in the duplicate footprint; distance of ag buffer at 100' vs. 130'; exemption from CEQA; lack of a resolution and associated findings with this staff report; desire for full set of plans (floor plan, elevations, landscape plans, etc.); single - story vs. two -story desirability; curb /gutter /sidewalk requirements for private vs. public streets; condition to not start construction until the demo is complete; intensity of use due to larger new structure; dedication for E. Cherry Ave. of applicant's property; and offer vs. acceptance of dedication for E. Cherry Ave. in Subarea 2. 10:00 p.m. After discussion, Commissioner Brown moved to continue the meeting through the end of this item and decide on the rest of the agenda at that time. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Parker, Ray, Tait, and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: None Motion approved on 5/0 roll call vote. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. Tony Janowicz, 445 Lierly Lane, spoke in support of the project and shared a letter of support signed by his neighbors. Moving the house further away from the ag land and helping with the roads will vastly improve the area, and he's willing to listen to Commission ideas. He answered Commission questions regarding the driveway coming off Lierly Lane instead of E. Cherry Ave., landscaping near the ag land, and deed restricting the house to single story. Damien Mavis, Subarea 1 co- owner, noted if the house burned down there wouldn't be conditions added. It's the same use, so it shouldn't trigger review (residential use to residential use). There's two feasible economic alternatives — an old house or a new one (not left vacant). The new one makes the existing condition better. Immediate neighbors are in favor of the project. Also, it solves a critical circulation issue by providing right of way. He's in full support of the project as a good planning move. Colleen Martin, 855 Olive, spoke on behalf of her mother who lives in the house adjacent to this one. She requested a condition for all demolition to be complete before issuing a building permit for the new structure. Also, she requested that there not be construction on Sundays to have a day off from dust and noise. Other than that they support the project. They don't want a wall in the ag buffer. They don't want the view of row crops impaired by a wall, hedge, or landscape buffer, which would cause a loss of ag land view that she loves. By removing the home, she has a better ag view. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2006 Chair Fellows closed the public hearing for public comment. PAGE 10 Steve Ross, 211 Garden Street, spoke in support of the project. The City code for the ag buffer is 100'. For Subarea 1 it was conditioned at 130', but not Subarea 2. 130' on Subarea 2 would effect a taking, which was not desired. As far as development or subdivision, the intent of the rule was subdivisions (changing a lot description or adding more buildings), which would require discretionary review. Remodeling was supposed to not add living space closer to the ag land if a property is within the ag buffer. This, though not a remodel, improves that situation by moving it farther from the ag land. All these things are what we want to happen. It's best for this property and for future use on E. Cherry Ave. Commission comments on the project: Tait: • The applicant seems to be doing the best he can with what he's got. He won't block the Titus' view. He's moving the house away from the ag land and making the situation better. • He agrees that the "use" doesn't change, but the structure is new. General Plan Ag5 -2.2 says "No portion of any new residential structure ... shall be closer than 100' from the site of agricultural operations ...." • Code section 16.12.170 —E.4 says "No new residential use shall be permitted within the buffer area unless it is determined there would be no other economically viable use of the property." How do we determine the economically viable uses of the property? • There were no findings to go by on this Plot Plan Review. • There should be a condition regarding cultural resources, since there may be other historical buildings within 1/8 mile radius. Parker: • This is a legal non - conforming use, so she doesn't dispute the right to rebuild a duplicate structure on a duplicate footprint, but this isn't the same thing. It's double the size in a new location. • She doesn't believe that implementing the buffer policy is a taking. Other similar things have been done for public health and safety, and the right to farm. • Since this is a new structure in a new location, impacts need to be taken into consideration, as well as conditions of approval and mitigation measures. • She wants to review plans for proximity and impact on both neighbors. That's not to say it can't be built, but neither can the planning standards be ignored just for the benefit of wider roads. It needs to be done in the right way. • The roads assistance and the move away from the ag land are two good points. The negative is that it increases density by doubling the house, so more humans and animals are exposed to the farming area. • Two important considerations are: 1) Can a buffer region be set up to block harmful dust, noise, and other impacts to the new building; and 2) how far back can it be built without affecting the adjacent neighbor? 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2006 PAGE 11 Brown: • He believes the City Attorney would agree that the new structure is different than just rebuilding a duplicate legal non - conforming use, and would like this to be flushed out by staff. • If the home were deed restricted to single story, because of buffer issues, he would probably vote in the affirmative. • Plans, findings and a resolution need to be presented to Commissioners for review at another meeting. They can't approve or deny the project without them. Ray: • Her first reaction was to approve it for the road provisions. • She struggled with the General Plan and Development Code, so she had to go to common sense planning. He can't just be left with a 15' sliver of land to build on — that would be a taking, so that settles that issue. • She agrees there needs to be findings for Commissioners to approve. • She suggests flipping the plans so the access is on Lierly Lane and there's no hole in the ag buffer as part of a compromise. • There does need to be good landscaping in the buffer. • Window placement needs to be checked. • She would be ready to approve it with findings and the plans flipped. Fellows: • He's felt for a long time that the General Plan ag buffer policy is insufficient, but that will need to be changed another night. • The purpose is to protect residents of the new house, their adjacent neighbors and the farmer. Ag land can't be preserved without giving farmers some protections. • The City Attorney would probably say they can't take away the owner's right to build a replacement residence, so it probably can't be conditioned that the entire lot be just buffer. • The proposal can probably be approved with certain changes: o 1. Locating the house as far away from the ag land as possible, even if it goes two stories. o 2. It needs a vegetated buffer all across the border near the ag land. o 3. The garage should access Lierly Lane. o 4. He would like curb, gutter, and sidewalk if it can be conditioned. o 5. Findings of approval need to be included for Commissioner review. o 6. He wants the City Attorney to review it. Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brown, to: • Instruct staff to come back with findings, conditions of approval, and mitigation measures to mitigate impacts of adjacent ag property, • Move access to Lierly Lane, • Return with landscape plans and building measures (access, windows, etc.) to reflect the buffer, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2006 • Push the building as far back as possible away from the ag property without affecting adjacent residential property. Discussion: Chair Fellows requested (and the maker and second agreed) to add: • Condition yardspace to the west and north portion of the property (so the kids aren't playing as close to the ag land and to allow reasonable space between the house and the neighbor). The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Tait, Parker, Ray, and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Janowicz read from a letter dated December 6, 2005 from the City Attorney which states the house may be demolished and a new home built (with reference to the ag buffer). 10:40 p.m. (Commissioner Brown excused himself due to the late hour.) Caren Ray moved and Chair Fellows seconded to finish the last couple of agenda items. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ray, Fellows, Parker, and Tait NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Brown Motion moved: 4/0 roll call vote. PAGE 12 III. A. PRE - APPLICATION CASE NO. 06 -001; APPLICANT — GAYLEN LITTLE; LOCATION — 183 BRISCO ROAD. Planning Intern, Megan Meier, presented the staff report and shared photos of the existing development. The applicant proposes to demo existing six units and build eight new craftsman -style townhouses. She described parking and common space areas. She shared elevations, landscape plans, preliminary color and materials board, and elevations showing height and slopes. Staff answered Commission questions for clarification of the staff report regarding differentiation between this and the adjacent project site, and the retaining wall height. The Commission also discussed the number of existing apartments in Arroyo Grande, unit affordability, slope and amenities in common space areas. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2006 PAGE 13 Gaylen Little, applicant, spoke in support of the project. He's owned these for ten years and would like to enhance the site and the neighborhood. He's done similar projects elsewhere in the County. He answered Commission questions regarding agreement with ARC suggestions, the number of bedrooms and bathrooms per unit, retaining wall height, backyard sizes, and consideration of smaller units. Chair Fellows closed the public hearing for public comment. Commission comments on the project: Tait: • Affordable housing needs to be looked at. • Smart growth was mentioned and it would be in line with City goals. • Please reconsider more choices (one- bedroom or studio units). • Control stormwater runoff, especially with the steep slope. • Plant plenty of shade trees for efficiency of the project. • Green building does matter. Parker: • She understands these are affordable and there are open spaces at either end, but the backyards are too narrow at 4'x10'. Consider lower retaining walls and widening the areas. • It's better to have smaller units and a little green space for kids and pets to have more elbow room. • Units 1,100 and 1,200 sf in size are good for entry level housing. • There should be more architectural detail in the back of the units. Ray: • This is an appropriate project for the location. • It's good that density is increased here. • She understands the economic need for the two 1,300 and 1,400 sf units, and the rest are good. • She's less concerned with open space and yards. For this area, sacrificing open space for density is appropriate. • She likes the craftsman style. • ARC can review the colors. • She doesn't see any parking problems. • Maybe the backyards could be widened by moving buildings forward, but that would probably set them in the right of way. Fellows: • He agreed about the appropriateness of the project for the location. Brisco is changing with Rick Wheelers improvements. • He's glad there's no problem with ARC recommendations, because he likes to rely on them. • Plans are nice in front, but the rear shouldn't be neglected and need some detailing. C ase No :; ; �, ti� „, .w Address _ Description er 1. STAFF 06 -005 „A pp City of Arroyo Grande E. Grand Ave. & James Way Categorical Exemption A. R. Strong PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2006 • He agrees that there should be more open space, and some of the larger units could be smaller to make that happen. The Commission had no further comment. IV. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION: None. NOTICES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE NOVEMBER 21, 2006: Commissioner Parker appreciates staff's efforts on the bike lanes. The Commission had no concerns with the above Administrative Item. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Staff reminded Commissioners that the next meeting in December has been cancelled. Also, the January 2, 2007 meeting was discussed and cancelled due to lack of a quorum. There will be a quorum for the January 16, 2007 meeting. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m. on a motion by Chair Fellows, seconded by Commissioner Ray. ATTEST: KATHY ME DOZA SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CO (TENT: ROB STRONG COMMUNITY DEVELOP ENT DIRECTOR (Minutes approved at the PC meeting of January 16, 2007) CHUCK FELLOWS, CHAIR PAGE 14 1