Loading...
PC Minutes 2005-10-181 1 1 CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Brown presiding; also present were Commissioners Fellows, Parker, Ray and Tait. Staff members in attendance were, Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Associate Planners Teresa McClish, and Kelly Heffernon, Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster and. Public Works Engineer Victor Devens. AGENDA REVIEW: No Changes requested. ANNOUNCEMENT: None. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of October 4, 2005 were approved as amended on a motion by Commissioner Fellows, seconded by Commissioner Tait and by a 5/0 voice vote; amendments as follows: • Page 3, under Commissioner Ray's comments, correct the first two bullets to state: o Regarding compatibility, it does meet the standards as written. o There is a legitimate segment of the community that can benefit from this type of housing. • Page 7, correct the address to read 1155 (not 155) Linda Drive. • Re approval of minutes September 6, 2005, Page 6, first paragraph, after third bullet, should state: Commissioner Fellows suggested that an interpretative site be located near the creek on the north side of Fair Oaks Avenue and artifacts recovered from the site be displayed in a local (Arroyo Grande) museum. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Additional Consent Item: Architectural Review Case No. 05 -018; Applicant Tom Fish; Location 403 Allen Street. 2. Additional Consent Item: Architectural Review Case No. 05 -018; Applicant - Holly Ziegler; Location - 420 Woodland Drive. 3. Memo from Rob Strong regarding a referral from the City of Pismo Beach re a General Plan Amendment and project at Oak Park Boulevard to amend 5.2 acres from Commercial and open space to residential. Re the Consent Agenda, Chair Brown had a concern on whether the Commission should be discussing items that were not part of the original Agenda. Mr. Strong stated that the Consent Agenda is a new procedure and includes items that are already approved by the Community Development Director and if the Commission or public PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 18, 2005 PAGE 2 have concerns they can be brought forward at the public hearing. In addition, there is a 10 -day appeal period. ILA. CONSENT AGENDA AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS SINCE OCTOBER 4. 2005: Case No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ARCH 05 -013 & ARCH 05 -014 TUP 05 -022 ARCH 05 -016 ARCH 05 -017 ARCH 05 -018 ppl DeBlauw Builders Ctrl Coast Salmon Enhancement Floyd Campbell Tom Fish Holly Zeigler Address 510 E. Branch Nelson Green 567 Crown Hill 143 Allen 420 Woodland Dr escript o E. Village Plaza Lots 1, 2, 8 &9 Creek Fest 2005 Single family home — originally part of a PUD previously approved Addition to existing 1,795 sq. ft. single - family house. 1144 Sq. Ft. addition to an existing 1026 sq. ft. house. Action A. A A , K. Heffernon T. Ricard R. Foster J. Bergman J. Bergman Consent Items Nos. 1 and 2. Chair Brown stated that he would like to see the architectural plans for Item No. 1; the Commission were not aware of what it looked like although they understood the ARC had approved it. Mr. Strong stated that staff was not expecting review or approval from the Commission for this item; that it was being reported strictly for the Commission to be made aware that it is approved by staff and that a project is progressing toward construction; it can be subject to a 10 -day appeal period. Chair Brown stated the Commission could not approve something that they had not seen. Mr. Strong replied that discussion regarding this could take place at the end of the meeting. After further discussion Commissioner Fellows made a motion seconded by Commissioner Ray to approve Consent Items Nos. 1 & 2; the motion passed on a 5/0 voice vote. Consent Item No. 3 Staff answered questions regarding this item and after Commission discussion Chair Brown opened the hearing for public comment. Susan Flores, 529 E. Branch Street, stated that she would like to see the Bennett House restored to what it originally looked like (not partly what it looked like); if the owner has concern with cost factors she had knowledge of where replacement materials could be found at a reasonable cost. There being no further public comment, Chair Brown closed the public portion. 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 18, 2005 After the Commission had stated their concerns, Mr. Strong suggested that this item could be referred back to the ARC for their revised recommendation due to the changed circumstances, particularly as it relates to replication of the Bennett House. Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fellows to refer Consent Item No. 3 back to the ARC for their review. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Parker, Fellows, Ray, Tait and Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None Consent Item No. 4. Chair Brown excused himself from this item due to the close proximity of his property and then appointed Commissioner Fellows to Chair the meeting. The Commission had questions and discussion on this item. PAGE 3 Commissioner Fellows opened the hearing to public comment and hearing none closed it. Commissioner Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker to approve this item; the motion passed on a 4/0 voice vote, Chair Brown abstaining. Consent Item No. 5 Mr. Strong verified that the ARC had approved this item. Staff answered Commission questions. Commissioner Tait made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fellows to approve Consent Item No. 5. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Tait, Fellows, Parker, Fellows, Ray and Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None Written Communications No. 3: Referral from Pismo Beach: Mr. Strong discussed this item with the Commission. Chair Brown thanked Mr. Strong for his prompt action in informing them of the proposal to convert approximately 1.0 acres of Open Space and 4.27 acres of Commercial designated land between Freeway 101 and Oak Park Boulevard Shopping Center to a predominantly Residential and Commercial subdivision. The Commission agreed that they were in favor of PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 18, 2005 PAGE 4 recommending denial of this proposal to the Planning Commission of Pismo Beach due to the adverse negative impacts this would have on the City of Arroyo Grande. Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray, to recommend to the Planning Commission of Pismo Beach that they deny the proposal because of circulation and traffic issues; the motion passed on a 5/0 voice vote. III. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. (Continued from September 6, 2005 meeting): VIEWSHED REVIEW CASE NO. 05 -012; APPLICANT — MARK & RHONDA VIGIL; LOCATION — 315 SOUTH ELM STREET Staff requested continuance of this item to a date uncertain. Chair Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to continue the item to a date uncertain; the motion passed on a 5/0 voice vote. IV. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. 05 -010; APPLICANT — JERRY SANGER; LOCATION — 573 CROWN HILL Mr. Foster presented the staff report which was for a proposal to merge twelve lots into five Tots and also to construct four new single - family homes. He stated that the existing single family home on site would have a new two -car garage and described the project area and size of lots. In conclusion, Mr. Foster stated the applicant had submitted an updated tree inventory which shows up to 19 trees being affected and that there are two options identified on the plans for approximately 3 -4 off street guest parking spaces. He asked the Commission for their feedback and suggestions to incorporate into a formal application. Staff clarified some of the questions the Commission had: • Explained where the guest parking could be located. • Landscaping and decks would be included as open space. • Lots 3 & 4 are landlocked to the owner; Harrison Street is not a public street and there is no public right -of -way. • Reducing four homes to three could actually make more parking difficulties due to the PUD process. • Utility easements in old subdivisions (like this one) were grandfathered in and there was no actual dedication to the City. • An updated plan shows the four homes on the back lots and they would move further down the hill. Mr. Foster then distributed the updated plan and stated that the same number of oak trees would be impacted as before. Although this was not a public hearing Chair Brown opened the hearing to allow public comment. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 18, 2005 PAGE 5 Greg Soto, project architect, described the highlights of the project and stated: • This is a difficult site. • There could be a problem with drainage. • The applicant would rather try to store the water onsite or have a retention area. • The proposed driveways would use pervious concrete. • It is proposed to remove 13 -19 trees (oak trees that are more like bushes), but keep at least half of the trees on site. • It is proposed to set the homes into the hill and keep to a low profile. • The style of the houses will be a combination of craftsman style with green /sustainable architecture; the colors will be earth tones to blend in with the shrubbery. • Lot 1 may have some problems regarding parking due to steepness of the grade. Mr. Soto then answered Commission questions. Commissioner Ray suggested that if the plans for Lot 1 were flipped (or mirrored) there might be more room for parking. 7:30 p.m. The Commission took a 10- minute break. Jerry Sanger, applicant, stated he lives in an existing house on the property; it has been his goal to build very sustainable homes; he plans to retain drainage onsite so as not to affect his neighbors and not put a burden on the City; he does not like removing oak trees but it could be a fire hazard having homes too close to oak undergrowth. Bill McCann, 575 Crown Hill, spoke in favor of the project and agreed with the concerns of Mr. Sanger regarding fire hazard with the undergrowth from the oaks. Chair Brown closed the hearing to public comments. Commission Comments: Ray: • Concern with parking and the effects this may have on Crown Hill. • Some of the concerns have already been addressed with the submission of the new plan. Fellows: • Merging the fourteen lots into five lots is good • It is an infill project. • The green build project could be a great example. • The applicant is sensitive to the neighbors. • Resolves the problem of the landlocked lots. • If trees are removed he would like to see the mitigation take place on site. • Water systerns are a good idea. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 18, 2005 PAGE 6 • The sewer line easement needs to be worked out. • Onsite guest parking with 28 -foot driveway is a good idea and will make circulation much better. • Labeling all trees onsite and in turn on the plans. Parker: • Agreed with the comments of both Commissioners. • Likes the project at this site. • Parking could either be on the 28 -foot access or in between the two garages if they were side -by -side. • 28 -foot instead of 20 -foot for parallel parking is a good idea. • The homes at 2300 -2500 sq ft. are a little large for this area; they could be downsized and this may help preserve the oak trees. • The fire hazard may be a problem, especially near lot No. 3. • Having the oaks surveyed by an arborist would resolve whether the oaks were truly a hazard and what needed to be removed. • Really likes all the proposed ideas for sustainable building. • Likes the fact that the applicant has planted oak trees on his own property. • Does not think lot No. 4 house would need to be moved back as it does have adequate parking; lot No. 3 would lose more oaks if it is pushed back and it may need to be reconfigured to allow more parking. Tait: • Green building is excellent, but don't remove oaks to provide natural lighting (oak trees more important than parking); suggest consulting with City staff to get correct figures for the oak tree replacement. • Pervious concrete wculd be a good solution to some of the runoff problems. • He sees more of a fire hazard with the oaks where the driveway cuts across into lot No. 3; the Fire Department needs to asses the fire hazard with the oak trees and get some documentation to let us know. • Agreed there is an access problem with lots No. 3 & 4; suggested that the driveway for the house on McKinley be used for access. • If the houses are moved further down the slope lot No. 3 would affect the oak trees; reducing the square footage on lot No. 3 and increasing the square footage on another house may preserve some of the oak trees. Brown: • He really approves of this project; drainage is an issue; utility and sewage easements should be spelt out. • He would like to see the project moved further down the hill for reasons of viewshed (for the neighbors above) and also the parking. • He is skeptical of the fire hazard conflict; he believes if the dead oaks are removed and a fire hydrant installed it would make the hillside safer than it is now. • Concern with the 30" oak and whether the canopy will be affected. • He is excited about this sustainable project; it could become the showcase project for the City. 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 18, 2005 PAGE 7 • The oak trees should be mitigated; maybe offer to put in larger oak trees than requested and Tess oaks may then be required. Fellows: • Suggested to use the area in back of the houses to provide storage and this could allow more room in the garages for the cars. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: A. Developme nt Code Amendment Case No. 04 -005; workplan review for residential densities Associate Planner, Ms. McClish, stated that to complete the Development Code update, staff would be bringing forth an Ordinance with proposed amendments to Title 16 chapters 16.32 (Residential Districts), 16.48 (General Development Standards) and 16.80 (Affordable Housing) to maintain consistency between the Municipal Code and the 2001 General Plan and Housing Element update. Ms. McClish then reviewed the proposed amendments under the heading of "Other ". She stated that in addition to the items listed, residential parking standards would also be reviewed in the update. In addition, the schedule in the staff report may need to be modified due to the priority of the Creek setback study. In reply to a question from Chair Brown, Ms. McClish clarified there is a provision in the Development Code regarding reverting back to pre -1991 setback standards and staff will present alternatives to remove this provision. In reply to a question from Commissioner Parker, Ms. McClish explained that the provision would be looked at first by area in single family zones, then multi - family zones and include antiquated small lot sub - divisions. Commissioner Parker stated that the PUD in mixed -use, multi - family should be reviewed because in some cases very large homes are being requested. In reply to a question from Commissioner Tait, Ms. McClish explained that the creek setback study is being done concurrently with the Development Code update. The Commission had no further comments or questions. Mr. Strong stated that architect George Garcia was present and would like to address the Commission on mixed -use development. George Garcia, Garcia Architecture and Design, spoke at length and passionately about mixed -use projects. Mr. Garcia stated that he is seeing a lot of mixed use with both small Tots and infill lots. He described his experience with local communities (both with City planning departments and the public) and stated the main issues and concerns that he sees repeatedly with mixed -use projects are parking, density and height. Commissioner Fellows asked why so many mixed -use projects are coming forward and if they are successful? Mr. Garcia replied that they are successful and that the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 18, 2005 PAGE 8 residential portion is popular because of affordability and the fact that they sell quickly. Mr. Garcia then gave examples of such projects in the County. He stated that parking requirements are always at the top of the list, but there are alternatives to onsite parking; a key element in design is diversity (providing a variety of housing for a variety of needs); affordable housing should be integrated. In reply to Commissioner Parker, Mr. Garcia stated that vertically integrated mixed -use projects which allow more density are typically seen in downtown projects (like the Village) and can be encouraged using cost as a tool; separate units with parking Tots between cost a lot more; phasing is also discouraged as that also costs more. Mr. Garcia agreed with Chair Brown that with vertical mixed -use it is important to educate the community to show how it works and why it is a good thing. The Commission thanked Mr. Garcia for the information on mixed -use projects and stated that they would like to have him come back. B. Development Code Amendment Case No. 05 -010; workplan review for The Arroyo Grande Creek Setback Policy and Standards study Ms. McClish presented the staff report for a preliminary work plan for a creek setback study and stated that on September 27 the City Council adopted a 45 -day interim urgency Ordinance prohibiting development on properties adjacent to the creeks or areas within 25 -feet of top of creek bank or edge of riparian vegetation (or whichever is greater). She explained that this is a prohibition on new applications for development, and does not affect anything that is in the pipeline. It is to allow time for staff to study the foreseeable ramifications of allowing development in these areas and to recommend regulations that may be deemed necessary or appropriate. Ms. McClish then stated that an extension of the Ordinance would go to City Council November 8, 2005, to review the potential issues related to impacts on public health, safety and welfare and to consider if an extension of the Ordinance is warranted to continue the necessary studies. The work plan being suggested was adapted from the City of San Luis Obispo and the City of Berkeley from creek projects that have been developed. The work plan is divided into three objectives: definitions, setback provisions and consistency with watershed policy. Staff will be coming forward with a development code amendment to establish an open space overlay district. Staff is hoping to complete work on this by Spring 2006. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: In answer to the Commission, Mr. Strong gave an update on the Nelson Green paving and stated it would be on the ARC Agenda November 7, 2005. Regarding Consent Agenda Items, Mr. Strong stated that he had been out sick for the last two weeks, but he would endeavor to increase his discretion and not allow projects to be added at the eleventh hour that were not on the agenda. In addition, staff would 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 18, 2005 also communicate with the Chair regarding larger scale projects in the Village Commercial and Village Mixed -Use areas for planned distribution prior to consent. The Commission said they were in favor of information being faxed or emailed to them if it would help staff relate information to them quicker Ms. McClish stated the VTTM & PUD 01 -001 (Tract 1998) project would be on the November 22, 2005 City Council agenda. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None. X. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. ATTEST: LY REARDON -SMITH SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTEN RO TR • `G COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR (Minutes approved at the PC meeting of November 15, 2005) TIM BRO N, A R PAGE 9