Loading...
PC Minutes 2006-06-061 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 2006 6:00. P.M. 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, Teresa McClish and Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Request for the public to turn off their cell phones during the meeting. AGENDA REVIEW: Commissioner Ray requested, and the Commission agreed, to hear item IV.A.(Administrative Items), before item II.A. so members of the public would not be kept waiting too long. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of April 18, 2006 were approved on a motion by Commissioner Parker, seconded by Commissioner Tait; the motion passed on a 3/0 voice vote, Commissioners Brown and Ray being absent this meeting. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Larry Turner, 323 Noquera Place, (representing The Mike Titus Memorial Committee) stated he wanted to clarify the confusion in terms of their appeal to the Planning Commission regarding staff's recommendations for Cherry Creek. He handed a letter to the Commission explaining their justification for the formal appeal to the Planning Commission. The basis for their appeal was to make a point to the Commission beyond more than a simple public comment on important issues in the project. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Turner if he thought that he had a right to appeal a recommendation made by staff versus appeal a decision by the Planning Commission? Mr. Turner replied that he believed the way that the Code is written he does. Commissioner Ray stated that it seemed to her that this may be a matter of semantics and if the word "appeal" were changed to something else would this help them further their cause and get to what they want to say? Mr. Turner agreed that would satisfy their requirements and appeal is maybe not the best word to use, but thought that by the City Code this was the best way to express our public comment. Commissioner Parker clarified : You are appealing because you consider the staff report inadequate and holds incorrect information and you have a concern that the Planning Commission receive correct information. Mr. Turner agreed. Otis Page, 606 Myrtle Street, re the Cherry Creek project, stated that they are appealing on the basis that they want to express their views on the substance of the staff report and want the Planning Commission to have the best information possible. It em Nom" ,, = Ca A pp 'Address ' TDescription Actio 1. CUP 06 -002 South County VCA 270 N. Halcyon Road Redevelopment of animal hospital R 2. COC 05 -001 Dee Louie 1274 and 1284 Cedar Street Certificate of Compliance for two lots located behind 1274 and 1284 Cedar Street R PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 2006 PAGE 2 Doris Wais, 300 Miller Way, read from a letter submitted earlier to the Planning Commission, stating many reasons why she strongly opposes the proposed rezoning and subsequent subdivision of the flag lot at 312 Miller Way on the lot below her property. Commissioner Brown asked that if the overlay were lifted from this area would this allow such an application to go forward. Mr. Foster stated that no project has been submitted, but if the overlay is lifted then an application could be submitted. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Letter dated June 5, 2006 from Jeanne Kohlbush, re Agenda Item II.A: Development Code Amendment Case No. 04 -005, not in support of removal of the overlay for Miller Way district. 2. Letter dated June 5, 2006 from William Wais, re Agenda Item II.A, Development Code Amendment Case No. 04 -005, not in support of removal of the overlay for Miller Way district. 3. Letter received June 6, 2006, from Rodger Forsythe re Agenda Item II.A: Development Code Amendment Case No. 04 -005, not in support of removal of the overlay for Miller Way district. 4. Letter from Colleen Martin, received June 6, 2006, re Agenda Item II.A: Development Code Amendment Case No. 04 -005, not in support of removal of the overlay for Miller Way district. 5. Memo from Rob Strong, Community Development Director, requesting a special Planning Commission meeting July 13, 2006. 6. Letter received at the meeting from The Mike Titus Memorial Committee, re their appeal. C. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION: The following Minor Use Permits are referred for Commission discussion and Planning Commission Resolution: Referral Item 1: Commissioner Parker asked staff for clarification on the issue with parking on this proposal. Mr. Foster explained that the Development Code did not specify the requirement for parking for vet clinics so the applicant was asking for a determination on this; however, a determination was not made as the application was denied. Language can be added to address this if the Commission would like to do this. After further discussion the Commission had no concerns. Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Chair Fellows, to approve the Resolution of denial of CUP 06 -002 due to the inability to make findings not being made, and adopt: 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 2006 RESOLUTION NO. 06 -2002 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06 -002; LOCATED AT 270 NORTH HALCYON ROAD; APPLIED FOR BY THE SOUTH COUNTY VETERINARY CLINIC The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Parker and Chair Fellows NOES: Commissioner Tait ABSTAIN: Commissioners Brown and Ray the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 6 day of June, 2006. 6:30 pm. Commissioner Tait excused himself from the meeting due to his not being well. Referral Item 2: Mr. Foster presented a short report on the Certificate of Compliance and answered some questions from the Commission to further clarify the application. After a short discussion the Commission had no further concerns. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker, to approve the Certificate of Compliance Case No. 05 -001, and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 06 -2003 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CASE NO. 05 -001; LOCATED AT 1274 AND 1284 CEDAR STREET; APPLIED FOR BY DEE LOUIE The Resolution was approved on the following roll call vote: PAGE 3 AYES: Commissioner Brown, Parker, Ray and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tait IV. A. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE MAY 16, 2006 A public hearing is not required for the following items unless an administrative decision is appealed or called up for review by the Planning Commission through a majority vote: Case N 1. 2. TUP 06 -009 PPR 06 -010 p Arroyo Valley Car Club Yogurt Creations Address E. Grand Ave/ Nelson. Green 1540 -D East Grand Ave. lescnption Car Cruise requiring temporary closure of E. Grand Avenue on July 28/ Car Show on July 29 Frozen yogurt shop with approx. 400 sf of public space Action= Recommend approval to City Council. A. Planner B. Soland B. Soland ., Case No.' ° .,.w ., App��� .. �: ��,,Address. ;�:� F 3 PPR 06 -001 Another Time 140 S. Elm St. High end second hand store in A. T. Ricard Around 1320 sf retail storefront. Change of copy only on existing sign. 4 VSR 06 -006 Mike & Nancy 190 Fairview Dr. 2nd story addition to existing A. T. Ricard Atkisson 1400 sf residence with 408 sf garage. Addition includes 1728 sf of new living space, of which 479 sf is on the 2 floor. 5. PPR 06 -009 Tony Janowicz 795 East Cherry Demo existing residence and A. K. Ave. garage and construct a new Heffernon residence and garage. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 2006 The Commission had no concerns with Administrative Items 1 -3. Commissioner Brown requested Item 5, PPR 06 -009, located at 795 East Cherry Avenue, be pulled and scheduled for public hearing due to concerns with the historical significance of the Ried house and it's relationship to the planning area 7E, and the Neighborhood Plan in relationship to the Cherry Creek project and the Agricultural buffer. Commissioner Parker concurred with Commissioner Brown. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker to schedule Administrative Item 5, for a public hearing; date to be announced. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Brown, Parker, Ray and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tait Commissioner Ray requested Administrative Item 4, be pulled and scheduled for public hearing due to the number of letters received from the public regarding this item. Commissioner Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brown, to pull Administrative Item 4, Viewshed Review 06 -006, located at 190 Fairview Avenue, for a public hearing. AYES: Commissioner Ray, Brown, Parker and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tait PAGE 4 II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04 -005; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITYWIDE. Associate Planner, Teresa McClish, presented the staff report, explaining that the Development Code Amendment is related to Design Overlay Districts and modification of standards for residential districts. In conclusion, Ms. McClish stated that due to concerns that some items need to be further discussed before bringing forward an ordinance, staff is 1 1 . , ,. - - ., Description A Action P P anne PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 2006 The Commission had no concerns with Administrative Items 1 -3. Commissioner Brown requested Item 5, PPR 06 -009, located at 795 East Cherry Avenue, be pulled and scheduled for public hearing due to concerns with the historical significance of the Ried house and it's relationship to the planning area 7E, and the Neighborhood Plan in relationship to the Cherry Creek project and the Agricultural buffer. Commissioner Parker concurred with Commissioner Brown. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker to schedule Administrative Item 5, for a public hearing; date to be announced. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Brown, Parker, Ray and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tait Commissioner Ray requested Administrative Item 4, be pulled and scheduled for public hearing due to the number of letters received from the public regarding this item. Commissioner Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brown, to pull Administrative Item 4, Viewshed Review 06 -006, located at 190 Fairview Avenue, for a public hearing. AYES: Commissioner Ray, Brown, Parker and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tait PAGE 4 II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04 -005; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITYWIDE. Associate Planner, Teresa McClish, presented the staff report, explaining that the Development Code Amendment is related to Design Overlay Districts and modification of standards for residential districts. In conclusion, Ms. McClish stated that due to concerns that some items need to be further discussed before bringing forward an ordinance, staff is 1 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 2006 PAGE 5 proposing to discuss each of the overlays in a workshop format and receive Commission direction for alternatives for each district. Proposed changes to the Development Code that may also affect the design overlays are: • Minor Use Permits — Viewshed Review: Areas zoned RR, RS, SF & MF — no second -story addition, or increase in building height greater than the average of the two adjacent residences shall be erected or enlarged on any single - family home until a minor use permit for viewshed review is obtained... • Residential Development Standard — minimum building site area: For new subdivisions in the RS district, area shall be increased to 40,000 sq. ft. for slope conditions exceeding 15 %. • Residential Districts — Small lot single - family attached (twin home, triplex, fourplex) allowed with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) permit in SF district; MF district - minimum building site area 10,000 sq. ft. or as approved with PUD. Ms. McClish then explained where the General Plan allows for potential increases in density: • MFA district is increasing from 11 to 14 du /acre. • MHP is increasing from 6 to12 du /acre. • Neighborhoods near Miller Way, Via La Barranca and a portion of Canyon Way, will change from Rural Residential (RR) 1 du /acre to Residential Suburban (RS) 2.5 du /acre. • The density bonus provisions in the Housing Element. Chair Fellows explained that Ms. McClish would proceed to explain each overlay, Commission would ask their questions, public could then ask their questions and make comment before proceeding to the next district. Chair Fellows then opened the public hearing to allow public comment. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICTS PROPOSED CHANGES & ALTERNATIVES: No. 1: Agriculture AG- D -2.1: 35 -acres between Strother Park and Branch Mill Road; minimum parcel size 5 acres. No change proposed in development standards. Otis Page, 606 Myrtle Street, stated his objection to the fact that no detailed staff report had been prepared for the meeting; this leads to confusion for the public and he did not understand how the Commission could make a decision without the correct information. Ms. McClish explained that staff is in process of preparing a fairly detailed staff report to bring forward with a proposed ordinance; there had been a prior workshop, the public was legally noticed and this meeting was being held to get additional public input and Commission direction before moving forward with staff recommendations. Terry Payne, 212 Miller Way, stated that Mr. Strong had informed her that the meeting tonight would be continued to a study session; it is inappropriate for a hearing to take place without any material for the public to review; she recommended continuance until study PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 2006 PAGE 6 sessions have taken place and time for review of materials given. Chair Fellows stated that they would like to get public input, Commission questions answered, then if needed continue the item and that no decisions would be made tonight. Ms. Payne stated that at her request, staff had provided her with a copy of the mailing list of residents who had been noticed regarding this meeting; it was hard to conceive that 616 notices were sent out due to the low turnout. Chair Fellows replied that it is not uncommon that many notices are sent out and not many people show up at the meetings. Commissioner Ray excused herself from the discussion and left the dais due to the fact that she resides in the vicinity of this overlay. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment: Mr. Page, expressed his concern that there is no staff report for this proposal and he does not understand how the Planning Commission can make recommendations without detailed information. Ms. McClish restated that this evening staff is looking for Planning Commission recommendation and public comment before coming forward with a final staff report and ordinance. The public had no further comment and the Commission had no questions on AG- D -2.1. No. 2, Rural Residential, (RR) D - 2.2 225 Tally Ho Road - to provide for developed design and density. Proposed: Zone change to RS consistent with General Plan - repeal overlay. Alternate: Zone change to RS - leave overlay. Commissioner Ray returned to the dais. Chair Fellows excused himself from discussion on this overlay and left the dais as he resides in the vicinity. In reply to a question from Vice Chair Brown, Ms. McClish explained that repealing this overlay allows the lot sizes and structures to become closer to RS, but would still be non- conforming; however, this area is already built out so there could not be further subdivision or units added with or without overlay; the plus would be that the RS has more flexible setbacks and second residential dwelling unit size, staff is proposing amendments to increase second dwelling unit size for the RS district in accordance with the lot size. Commissioner Parker expressed confusion with this overlay change and stated it would have been more helpful if they had alternatives in a table to relate to. Commissioner Ray agreed it would have been easier if they had a table to look at. Ms. Payne agreed with Commissioner Parker and Ray that a graph or chart showing the 1 1 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 2006 PAGE 7 difference between the existing and proposed changes would make it a lot clearer for everyone. Ms. Payne then proceeded to read a letter, for the record, stating concern with the City's statement that the current zoning is not consistent with the General Plan and that this should have been considered some two years ago with the update; the development overlays were initiated some 30 years ago before we had ordinance guidelines and are consistent with what the City calls a Planned Unit Development (PUD), which are being and have been approved all along; in 1991 a Development Code Update was done and the overlays were not removed at that time and there was a reason for this; the City should look at the reasons. Ms. McClish stated there is a concern that some of the approvals done with the 1991 Development Code Update (and placed separately in the back of the Development Code) may be inconsistent given the 2001 General Plan Update and are difficult to decipher; the issue of wanting to have variable standards and achieve better design is why the City would like to be able to have a consistent process. Vice Chair Brown commented that he would be uncomfortable approving a change that created more legally non - conforming Tots; he would like the upcoming staff report to state the ramifications of keeping things legally conforming, versus not legally conforming, to be included. Ms. Payne, stated that when the Development Code Overlays were initiated it was clearly stated to reserve the right in perpetuity; in addition, their area (referring to the vicinity of Miller Way) is completely built out so it is inconsistent to make any changes. No. 3. Rural Residential (RR) D - 2.3 Vicinity of La Barranca - Tract 453, with a maximum density of 39 units. Proposal: Rezone RR to RS consistent with the General Plan, with provision that new subdivision be restricted to 40,000 sq. ft. for lots exceed 15% slope. Alternative: Leave as RR and leave overlay. In reply to Commissioner Parker, Ms. McClish clarified that the purpose of the 'D' overlay in this district related to how many units were allowed which is now allowed with the 2001 General Plan Update. Commissioner Parker expressed concern that it could be dangerous if a blanket removal was done, especially if it had to do with clustering due to environmental reasons. Ms. McClish said staff is cognizant of this and the ordinance will have an environmental review to evaluate these concerns. Commissioner Parker requested that when the ordinances come forward the Commission receives information as to why each individual overlay was originally put on these areas. Dale Arnold, 597 Via La Barranca, requested that each of the design overlays be considered separately. Vice Chair Brown stated that based on public comment received this is probably what will happen. Carolyn Freedman, 192 Ruth Ann Way, suggested that the General Plan EIR document be PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 2006 PAGE 8 looked at for the environmental review, as an alternative to an Initial Study /Negative Declaration for the overlay modifications, to save time and energy. Sandy Arnold, 590 Via Le Barranca, stated the reason not so many people were present at the meeting tonight was probably because most of those noticed were in support of the proposed changes and thought they were a good thing; she suggested that the overlays where the public was expressing concern should be considered separately. Vice Chair Brown stated he considered the proposal for this overlay was acceptable and that Commissioner Parker's concern should be duly noted. 8:00 p.m. Vice Chair Brown requested a 5- minute break. Mr. Strong left the meeting due to not feeling well having had tooth surgery earlier. 8:15 p.m. Chair Fellows returned to the dais. No. 4. VCD, VCM, VR, SF, MF D -2.4 Historic Character Overlay Districts — to specify Design Guidelines and Standards for Development. Proposal: No change. Alternative: None No. 5. Single Family, SF D -2.5 South side of Montego Street — maximum height is 11 ft. from curb to peak of house. Proposal: No change (Amending viewshed provisions) Alternative: Revise to include six lots north side of Montego Street if viewshed amendments are not recommended by the Planning Commission. Tom Parsons, 1219 Montego Street, asked if the overlays could be written to include landscaping in relation to viewshed concerns? Ms. McClish stated that staff had considered this and after research felt that it would be a very extensive process with no enforceability and would not be an appropriate provision to include at this time. Cities that do implement these report that they are onerous and the mediation process long. Howard Mankins, 200 Hillcrest Drive, stated that Montego Street is a fully developed street; regarding the viewshed review he has concern that staff is proposing to take an average limit of two houses (on each side of an applicants') and if this had been done with the home in front of his it would have blocked 50% of his view; he suggested staff write in language to state "in order to protect the viewshed of the property above not build higher than the existing roof line "; he asked if this would include the entire northside of Montego Street. Ms. McClish stated the "alternative" was to provide for additional protection for the six lots. Mr. Mankins stated that after walking around the neighborhood found that there was great concern in the area (Newport, Sierra, Hillcrest, and Montego Streets) about conversion of garages to living quarters and making them two -story. 1 1 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 2006 PAGE 9 Richard Duffin, 1398 Newport Avenue, stated that the south side of Newport Avenue should also be included in the viewshed process as they also have basements, could rebuild, and block the views of properties on the north side; they should have to maintain the heights that they have now; he would like to see landscaping included also (esp. trees). Wendy Beckam, 220 Hillcrest Avenue, stated concern with the language for the viewshed and asked for clarification on "average height of two homes should be taken ". Ms. McClish explained the intent was to look at the height of two homes (on either side of the applicant's) to assess if this would trigger a viewshed review if the average was going to be exceeded. Ms. Beckam stated that the language is a concern as there are three houses on the other end of Montego Street that are higher than the rest and this language could trigger a domino effect. No. 6. Residential Suburban, RS D -2.6 Vicinity of Newport Avenue — maximum height two - stories, NTE 30 ft. and no main building to exceed 15 ft. from the highest corner of the property. Minimum net building area 12,000 sq. ft; 20,000 sq. ft. for churches and public uses; minimum lot width 60 ft. residential and 100 ft. public uses; minimum lot depth 90 ft. Proposal: Repeal. Amended viewshed and other standards consistent with RS. Ms. McClish stated that there is a possibility that the lots fronting Newport Avenue might be rezoned to SF to match the neighborhood across the street; this was a concern brought up in the prior public workshops. Mr. Duffin stated that this is exactly what they do not want as this would trigger flag lots. Harry Harland, 1350 Hillcrest Avenue, also stated concern with the proposed change in the viewshed language as it does not talk about height in general; the definition as proposed could be a problem and it would be better to state, "no addition or increase in the existing building height will be erected without triggering a viewshed review process "; if there is a vacant lot the height of the adjacent residences could be used and the lower of the two trigger the process. Ms. Freedman suggested it may be more simple to state "no increase in building height shall be permitted on any single family home until a viewshed review permit is obtained; if someone wants to build on a vacant lot then they should be required to get a viewshed review permit also. Commissioner Ray advised staff to include more than one alternative in the staff report to cover public comment. No. 7 Single Family, SF -D -2.7 Vicinity of Ruth Anne Way - maximum building height: 18 ft from established curb height, except lots 1, 2 & 3, of Tract 554 and lots 1 & 2 of Parcel Map AG 73 -383, and lot 1 of Parcel Map AG 74 -293, where maximum height is 22 ft. from established curb. Proposal: Amend to allow up to 22 ft. Alternative 1: No change. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 2006 Alternative 2: Repeal and rely on amended viewshed. Mr. Parsons, stated if the height on Ruth Ann Way is raised, resident's ocean views would be obscured and this would not be good for the neighborhood; he would highly recommend against this. Ms. Payne stated she had lived in this neighborhood in the past, and that the height limitations were evaluated at the time the subdivision was put in and the reasons for this should be reviewed; she does not see why this should be changed. Mr. Parsons stated he would like to see the height limitation expanded easterly (this is area that affects his view). Ms. Freedman stated she lives in this neighborhood and the elevation of lots, starting three or four down from the top and continuing all the way down to Priscilla Street, stair step down; she believes that good design could provide a vehicle for additions of second story without blocking a view; her own house is a case in point and she would like to do an addition; given the rising costs of homes that families need, she would like this overlay repealed and go through the process of viewshed review. Daniel Rodriguez, 1320 Hillcrest Drive, stated everyone wants to keep their view, but his house is on the highest point on Hillcrest so where would he stand it he wanted to build up? He would be penalized; he would like time to discuss this overlay separately. Steve Gastineau, 1232 Brighton Avenue, stated he agreed with Ms. Freedman that everyone should go through a viewshed review. Debra Gastineau, 1232 Brighton Avenue, stated that there is a viewshed being considered at 190 Fairview Avenue which will partly block their view and nothing can be done about it as they are outside of the overlay. Mr. Parsons, stated that people bought their property knowing what they had. No. 8 Rural Tract 1513 space ease Proposal: Alternative: Residential, RR -D -2.8 - approved for cluster single - family ment. Repeal and rezone SF (homes) General Plan. No change. PAGE 10 development, includes a church and open and PF /OS (church), consistent with the There was no public comment and no Commission questions regarding this. No. 9 Rural Residential, RR -D -2.9 Commissioner Ray recused herself from overlay D -2.9 and D -2.10, and left the dais as she lives in the vicinity of this area. Vicinity of Miller Way — approved Tract 577, for single - family hillside development with "Optional Design and Improvement Standards ", with condition for deed restrictions to provide for no more than 27 Tots. Proposal: No change. 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 2006 PAGE 11 Alternative: Rezone RS and repeal overlay with provision that new subdivision restricted to 40,000 sq. ft. Tots for slopes exceeding 15 %. Ms. McClish clarified for Commissioner Parker that the intent is to average out the whole property in respect to properties with a 15% slope. Ms. Payne, 212 Miller Way, representing the neighborhood, stated she was in agreement with what Ms. McClish was proposing: no change in the overlay for their district. No. 10, Rural Residential, RR - D - 2.10 Vicinity of Miller Way - approved Tract 559, for single - family hillside development with "Optional Design Standards" to allow 14 lots in 12.57 acres. Lots with Tess than 85 ft frontage required to have 50 ft. front yard setback to allow for off - street parking. Proposal: No change. Alternative: Same as 2.9. Ms. Payne stated that this area was Phase 2 of the overall Miller Way project and the conditions on both are the same and consistent. Mrs. Wais stated that her son had also written a letter, for the record, regarding her property in this overlay; the three concerns are traffic, fire and CC &R's if property below her is built on; in addition there is a conservation and open space classification that was passed a few years ago by the City Council (COS5 -1) that prohibits division of the property below hers. No further public comment and no Commission questions. Commissioner Ray returned to the dais. No. 11 Rural Suburban, RS - D - 2.12 Vicinity of La Cresta Drive — development setbacks apply for previous R1 district. Front yard setback 20 ft., may stagger with a 3 ft. variation from setback lines; side yard 5 ft., street side yard 10 ft., rear yard 10 ft., with 1,500 sq. ft. open area to rear or side otherwise 20 ft. Proposal: No change. Alternative: Repeal with amendments allowing setbacks with prior entitlement. No further public comment and no Commission questions. No. 12 Multi - Family Apartments, MFA - D - 2.13 Zoned at the time of the 1991 Development Code Update for consistency with General Plan designation. Proposal: Repeal overlay, leave MFA. Alternative: No change. No further public comment and no Commission questions. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 2006 Chair Fellows closed the public hearing. PAGE 12 No. 13 Multi - Family, MF -D -2.14, MF D -2.15, SF D -2.16, MF -D -2.17, SF D -2.18 All twin home subdivisions — allowed with amendments to SF and MF standards. Proposal: Repeal overlays. Alternative: No change. Ms. McClish stated these changes will require an update in the Development Code. After discussion the Commission agreed to have an extra Planning Commission meeting Thursday, July 13, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. so as to enable this hearing to be continued to a date certain. Commissioner Ray stated that until they received a staff report with some detailed information for their consideration they will not know if further workshops are necessary. Dave Robischotti, 187 S. Elm Street, asked if there will be other areas that will be looked at in the future as there are many different developments around his area and yet he cannot do anything with his property. He has been asking the City to consider his area, but has been told it cannot be addressed at this time. Ms. McClish explained that this area is not in an overlay and is consistent with the General Plan so that is why it has not come forward yet. However, staff has reviewed this area and there is good argument for rezoning the west side of Elm Street to Multi - Family (for those properties facing Elm Street) and add in some density, but this would require a General Plan Amendment. Ms. Payne requested a comparative chart be included with the staff report for each one of the development overlay designations that shows the existing overlays and proposed changes. Ms. Beckham, 220 Hillcrest Drive, stated she did not get a public hearing notice for this meeting. Ms. McClish stated staff would check this out. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker, to continue the pubic hearing to August 1, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. when the staff report will be considered; the Commission will make recommendations at that time and decide if further workshops are required. Commissioner Ray stated she would not be present at the August 1 meeting, but would like to request that a comparison chart with some tables be included with the staff report (for the next meeting) on just the overlays that are proposed to be changed; she would like to see some history on the intent of the overlays; a discussion of an alternative viewshed review and possible triggers for the view shed review. Chair Brown stated there should also be mention of the overlays not being changed, included in the staff report, so the public will be aware of which these are. Commissioner Parker requested more information included as to why the City is proposing 'no change', to enable the Commission to agree with this status. Regarding the viewshed 1 1 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 2006 PAGE 13 review alternative, she would like to see these reviews simplified; sometimes they get into so much detail that it becomes very difficult to make an informed decision. Commissioner Brown expressed concern that if the viewshed review process is simplified, to a great degree, so that any kind of change will trigger a review, staff could be inundated with them and this could create havoc. Chair Fellows suggested that when the staff report on the overlays has been prepared that a Commissioner review it prior to finalization to make sure it is clear for the public. Commissioner Ray volunteered to review the materials even though she would not be present at the August 1 meeting. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker, to continue the public hearing to the regular meeting of August 1, 2006. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Parker, Ray and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tait III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. Commissioner Brown asked for clarification on whether Commissioners need to excuse themselves due to conflict of interest, when considering items that have to do with the General Plan (no economic interest involved). Ms. McClish stated that she will recheck with the City Clerk, but some discretion has to be used when looking at neighborhood specific conditions and in such cases it might be good judgment to step down. Commissioner Brown asked for an update on the creek workshop held last Wednesday, as he was not able to be present and had a concern about how this will affect applications already in the City. Ms. McClish stated that the creek workshop was held last Wednesday, by the City, with speakers from Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Luis Resource Conservation District, and Salmon Enhancement and included looking for ways to protect the creek; applicants that are not included in the moratorium and are in process of review are being made aware that we are considering alternatives. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None. V.III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 2006 ATTEST: 1 LiL- LY ARD ON -SMITH CHUCK FELL • WS, CHAIR SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO C • NTENT• ►apta ROB ' TRO �G ; � COMMUNITY DEVE PMENT DIRECTOR (Minutes approved at the Planning Commission meeting of June 20, 2006) PAGE 14 1 1