Loading...
PC Minutes 2005-05-31MINUTES - CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MAY 31, 2005 6:00 P.M. —10:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Brown presiding; also present were Commissioners Fellows, Keen, Parker and Tait. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman, and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of May 17, 2005 were approved on a motion by Commissioner Fellows, seconded by Commissioner Keen, with the following changes: ✓ Page 5, correct spelling to "rip -rap". ✓ Page 12, number 4 refers to the tower closest to the restaurant. ✓ Page 12, list Chair Brown as absent. The motion was approved on a 4/0 voice vote. Chair Brown abstained due to his absence at that meeting. I. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Letter dated May 26, 2005 from Michael Bondello re Consent Item 2, VSR 05-007 2. Scope of work for Biological and Drainage Analyses — Cherry Creek Project 3. Design Guidelines and Standards for Mixed Use Districts II. A CONSENT AGENDA AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS SINCE APRIL 19, 2005 MO"� OR , A Address_ pp."' F ,�DesCrfpti'vn A Action Pla�er�' 1. VSR MEX 05-009 574 May Street 05-004 Granny unit over garage with 10% deviation for architectural match A A. Brownwood 2. VSR 05-007 585 May Street New SFR of 3370 sf A A. Brownwood Chuck Fellows stepped down from consent item 2, as the O'Connors, who wrote one of the letters, are his clients. Consent Agenda Case No. 1: Commissioner Keen went to look at the property and felt it's already overbuilt. Adding another 690 sf will only make it more so. The other commissioners had no comments. Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to approve Consent Agenda Case No. 1 (VSR 05-009 and MEX 05-004). The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Parker, Tait and Chair Brown. NOES: Keen ABSTAIN: Fellows MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 31, 2005 Consent Agenda Case No. 2: In response to Chair Brown's request, Community Development Director Rob Strong described the project. There was a house there previously, but it was demolished, and a new building was placed on the western lot with no complications. This proposal is a 2 -story residence on a 50' frontage of May Street. While it is a large house, there are other two-story houses in the vicinity. The site planning, including driveway and garage, reflect terrain constraints. It will be more prominent due to it's location at the top of the hill, but since it's consistent with property development standards, approval is recommended. If there's any dispute, the decision can be considered by Planning Commission or appealed by any concerned party. Commissioner comments: Brown In terms of height, how does it compare to the house next door? The house next door is a single story, split level, with garage beneath living elevation. Adjacent houses on west side of May Street are also predominantly single story or split-level. The nearest two- story is two doors away to the east on McKinley. There is a height difference because of the terrain, but the building height conforms to standards from grade to peak of roof. In terms of the driveway concern, is there any alternative? The letter suggested flipping the plan over, but that would require an embedded driveway, involving excavation, without altering the building height. It's one of the larger homes on Crown Hill, but it's characteristic of current -day construction with large floor area, while still meeting FAR requirements. The house can easily be spread to one story without affecting oaks. Keen • It should come back as a public hearing, due to neighbors' and his own concerns. Parker • A public hearing is a good idea. • Will this new home be dug into the ground? The garage portion is embedded, but the taller portion is further back than the garage, so it will look more prominent. There's two stories plus a garage basement. • So it looks almost 3 stories? That is correct. Tait • He agrees a public hearing is needed, with the height and being built on top of a hill. • Was the oak tree illegally removed or was that necessary? A permit was obtained and it was diseased. Commissioner Parker added that she saw photos and it was completely hollow inside, full of termites and not in good shape. Brown • He doesn't have a huge problem with it, although he had some issues regarding where it sits. However, he didn't know if overall height was reason enough to deny it. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker to schedule this item for public hearing. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Parker, Tait, and Chair Brown. NOES: None ABSTAIN: Fellows Commissioner Fellows returned. He added that he had no problem with Consent Item 1. Page 2 of 9 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 31, 2005 III. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. IV. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. PRE -APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. 05-003; APPLICANT — PRESTON THOMAS; REPRESENTATIVE — MARK VASQUEZ; LOCATION —125 NELSON STREET. The Planner was unable to attend, so Mr. Strong presented this project for a mixed-use development that includes apartments and four office/commercial attached residential units. Chair Brown requested the representative to comment. Mark Vasquez, architect, stated this is a mixed use development, though mostly residential. The general design came out of one he did several years ago in response to the City's request for an alternate concept of how it could be developed, (when owned by Phil Zeidman). He hopes it fits with the existing area, as well as future uses for the area. Commissioner comments: Keen • Are the zero lot lines mentioned in the staff report internal to the project? Yes. It's only between the two duplexes in back. • He likes this project much better than what they saw before. It's a good use of the land and he likes how it looks. • The parking was difficult before, and this addresses that, as well as most of their • concerns with the other project. He likes it and thinks it will fit in well. • Are there bedroom windows on the side of the neighboring house by the driveway? He wasnY sure, but thought there were only high windows. Parker • It's always nice to see you come forward with work, because you present work that goes well within the Village. • Are the backyards 10' deep in back? They're actually 12' deep. • Is the existing house next door on a zero lot line? Yes, it sits adjacent to the lot line, within 2' at the closest point. • What kind of fencing will there be between existing neighbors? He assumed some type of wood fencing for a residential feel, but still having separation. • Are the houses in back three stories (garage + two)? Yes. • Are they taller than McClintocks? He doesn't know the height of McClintock's, but in order to make it work, the building peaks will be just under the maximum height limit. The third story will be built into the peak to make it look like two stories. • She likes this mostly because in this neighborhood there's commercial going right up to single family residences. The neighborhood is in transition, so it's hard to tell where it's going. She likes the blending with offices below and apartments above. • The neighbors' basic concerns were on the driveway near the existing home. She wondered if it would be possible to flip the plan, so it's on the other side. She suggested possibly installing a block wall between them to help with noise and privacy. They're concerned about it, but don't want to shut that property off. The site dictates that it would be the correct side to put the driveway on for better access to the back. They were trying to buffer that house and make it not feel like it was surrounded, since it's a smaller SFR. Although there will be some traffic, it is a relatively low use, since it's residential (and not commercial) in back. Page 3 of 9 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 31, 2005 • She expressed privacy concerns about the balconies overlooking the neighbor's backyards. He's exploring reworking the floorplan to add an internal staircase and make the yards more useable than the balconies. • Is there demand for studios here? Yes, but he ended up using one bedroom units. Fellows Tait Have you made revisions requested at ARC in regards to lengthening and symmetry of windows? We're not to that stage, but well be looking into it. He's concerned with the amount of pavement and units versus low levels of landscaping. In changing to one bedroom units, one parking space is eliminated, which will help. He's concerned with the chart on page 2 of proposed and required development standards. It mentions the deviations are alright, but they seem like wide variations (lot size, front and side setbacks, lot coverage and FAR). Mr. Strong replied that the zoning is for a Mixed Use district. The development standards are more consistent with a PUD range of lot sizes. The individual lots far exceed the minimum lot size in the district. The front and sideyard setbacks are typically set at the commercial development standards (0-15), and in Mixed Use districts they can propose lesser yards. The deviation is in a range consistent with building code and neighborhood compatibility. Because it's a mixed use district, it enables up to 100% lot coverage and FAR of one. The parking requirement tends to force a lesser coverage and the FAR can be made up in multi -story buildings. It's well within limits. Other mixed use proposals had similar variations in setback and height. He's concerned with projects close to the creek, as even if water goes to the street, then it returns through a drop inlet to the creek. A bio -filter would be nice, maintained by a HOA. Another option is a fossil filter. Does the City have any fossil filters yet? Mr. Devens replied they don't now, but probably will in the next 5-7 years. He described the necessary maintenance for fossil filters. On one of the sketched plans (Conceptual Grading Plan, page 2), a note says underground "something" — what is that? It's underground "infiltrator storage", which is a device to put water back into the ground. It's only for the back sides of the unit, because they're trying to minimize what needs to be done to the natural property and they couldn't get water out to the street. o Are there cleanouts in case it silts up? Yes, but it's not a walkable product. It's sort of like a leech field, only it's a plastic chamber. Instead of filling it full of rock, there's an airspace void. ARC notes stated that concrete surfacing is proposed. It won't be an asphalt drive will it? It was original concept to have a concrete product — not asphalt — to help limit oil. Will there be trees planted? Landscape plans are yet developed, but yes there will be trees. Maybe a 4' block wall with pilasters above could be installed between the driveway and the neighbor so there's additional feel of privacy, but they're not completely shut off (like an all block wall). Will they lose the deed restricted affordable housing unit in going from studios to one bedroom units? Mr. Strong answered that if there are six units or less, the code allows for an in lieu fee. How does losing one parking space add to landscaping? You would see more landscaping in front of the. L. Also, there's a common outdoor area on the westerly side of the project for everyone to use. What type of ownership is proposed? This is a Planned Development type project. There are four units in back for sale, with individual ownerships for each unit. The owner Page 4 of 9 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 31, 2005 of the commercial space will own the apartment above. They would commonly share the driveway and open space. • It looks good. Brown • What is the frontyard setback on Nelson Street? There's the curbline, a 6'sidewalk, and 3' to the property line, and 4' from there, so 7' of landscaping from back of sidewalk to beginning of the building. This may change, as landscaping was requested to be moved toward the front. • There's always friction between mixed use and current residential uses. Keep in mind a sensitivity to that friction. Does it have a residential feel when you look at it from Nelson? Does it have the same type of sidewalk, vegetation, etc? We're trying to keep it in line with a residential feel and smaller homes. • He requested a rendering, model, or other indication of what the view will be of the project from across Nelson Street (especially in regards to height of McClintock's). • How does the one parking spot substantially change the landscaping? It's not a "substantial change", but ARC wanted to see more landscape in that area. What will happen is the space closest to unit 3 will go away to create more landscaping, which will help with the scale of buildings in back and open that area up. Also the building may slide back and the planter divider may slide more to the front. • Could you get more landscaping and vegetation if you asked for a parking reduction? Yes, but his concern is that is has to make sense for the project. He has looked at it and is trying to balance that. Concerns from other hearings included parking on Nelson St. • He's a much bigger fan of deed -restricted housing than in lieu fees, and would be much more inclined to approve with a deed -restricted unit. • He also is concerned about the driveway. He would like that further addressed in the project submittal. No motion was made, as this was only a pre -application review. B. PRE -APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. 05-002; APPLICANT - SHARON F. BILLON, MD; REPRESENTATIVE — MARK VASQUEZ; LOCATION — 210 TRAFFIC WAY. Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman presented this project for a new commercial office space. The project is for a four -unit, 2 -story office building behind the CPA office, and the architectural style will be similar. There are 11 parking spaces. It utilizes shared driveway access. The applicant has addressed SAC and ARC concerns re: circulation, the driveway easement, disabled access, the parking layout and aesthetic enhancements. Chair Brown requested the representative to comment. Mark Vasquez, architect, described this as being a fairly simple project. The back is now predominantly asphalt parking. The proposed structure would add smaller office units to the Village, which are more appealing to insurance representatives, accountants, etc. In regards to ADA compliance, they provided ADA parking space to serve both buildings, and added ADA access to the existing CPA office. In regards to the 2" sidewalk variance by the existing office, there are exemptions available for historic areas, which can even go to 36" in some cases. Commissioner comments: Tait: • What type of screening will be between this project and the two existing one-story homes at the rear of the property? There's a landscaped planter area where the Page 5 of 9 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 31, 2005 common driveway easement comes in to buffer it there. Also, there is some lifting of the grade in back to drain water out of the property, which will require a short retaining wall. They may make it a 4' block wall and grow sticking plants to green it up. Also there's a landscape area to the side of unit B and they're limiting windows on the side to guard privacy. • Is there now or will there be available parking on Traffic Way? Mr. Devens replied yes, it's adequate for people to park on the street. • Is there a problem making a left turn out onto Traffic Way? Mr. Devens replied it's the same as anywhere else and people have to exercise caution. • Are there many or any changes to the existing house in front? We're trying to maintain the character of the existing structure, except for removing the non -historic side porch and rebuilding the steps for ADA compliance. Modifications to the existing house in the front consist of changes to the handrails at the front steps and changes to the landscaping and walkways. • Is ADA access in front or rear of front building? The front steps will be rebuilt for those who can climb up and wheelchair access will be in the back. • The common drive is listed as 24' wide, but it seems narrower by Traffic Way. Is that true or is it 24' throughout? It's narrower in front. In discussions with the Building Department, they said they would allow a minimum of 16, which is what exists currently. • It seems there's a problem with backing out if all the parking spaces are filled, especially with larger vehicles. ARC discussed this, but we do have the parking there and I've done studies that show a car could get out. The ARC comment was that statistically the handicapped spot will be empty most of the time and it could be used to aid in backing out. Also he made the aisle space wider to help turn around. It's not optimal, but to develop interior existing lots, it will work. There's 28' of backout space. Fellows: • He's glad the ADA space was removed from the front per ARC request. He appreciates the lawn in front as it is now. • Is the walkway along the south of the lot in what is now the sideyard? Yes. • Does the concrete walkway narrow where the telephone box comes out to the sidewalk? The box is flush, so it's not in the sidewalk. It's still 48" there. • He likes it. • The front house is very attractive, and he's glad they're not changing it too much. Parker: • To put in the sidewalk, will they remove the bushes and build it up? That's correct. • Will you put in a different fence? As we're working, well have to work that out. • ARC made comments that the units in back should look like the front. All the units in back are pretty much the same architectural style, with the windows, clapboard, and two trim colors - will you make it match the period with the way it is now? We're trying to tie it into this particular property (CPA office) mainly, but yes are all complimentary back there. Not many colors are necessary. • So the houses in back are not part of this property? That's correct. • Where does the property line go — to where there's parking in the planter box? Yes. • So where do they park now? Currently they park on this property and they plug up the parking, as they pull in haphazardly. He showed her on the plans where they could develop parking. • So they'll have to develop their property to figure out their parking? Yes, it's partially being dealt with at this time. • Does the back property access their house only from this property currently? Yes. Page 6 of 9 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 31, 2005 • So the grade will go up 24" in the back and that's the reason for the retaining wall? Yes, to direct water offsite. The property directly behind it, that fronts on Station Way, is elevated 24': We're going to be very sensitive to that and lift it as little as we have to, but we need to get the water out. • Will the retaining wall go all the way back to the edge of the property? Probably not, they'll probably make it go back as far as they have to, but don't want to lift up the property adjacent to the neighbor if they don't have to. We can direct water off the roof out back with pipes to the front, so they don't have to grade all the way in back. Also, they want to be sensitive to a large tree in back and not do too much grading. • Is there a way to connect the offices? Yes, the upper floor could connect and the lower floor could connect. • The parking seems strange, but she can see how we have to do something, especially if there's a grade there. • It's a big improvement to this land. You don't even know that this area is back there. Keen: • There was a lot of discussion at ARC about the side porch and steps. They wanted that removed, since it wasn't part of the original building. • They pretty well covered the concerns of the ARC. • There's a driveway easement document, so will they continue to allow the house in back to use it? Yes, that's an existing shared easement for the driveway. • Make sure to take care of drainage from the back to front. • He likes the look of the building. • The elevation seems not quite the same, but he thinks it will fit in well. • He doesn't have a lot of problems. Good job! Brown: • In terms of the shared easement and based on the current configuration, if you put something back there, what will keep people from using the parking spaces? The shared easement is just for the driveway, as neither property had legitimate access to the back. There is no shared right to park • Where will they park? There is an area where they could develop 4 or 5 spaces. • Do your calculations include the fact that they will continue to use the spaces? No, it's based on the project. • What if they continue to use those spaces? That will be for the owner to deal with the Police Department or as a civil matter. o He's still concerned about the parking configuration and it may be a future issue. • Is wheelchair access from the back? Yes. • Do you have concern about left hand turns out of the driveway? With any of the driveways on Traffic Way you need to use caution. Even the Post Office is potentially dangerous. One advantage is this location doesn't tend to get parked a lot. Also, it's a high curb and there may be better site visibility. o Please explore possibility of a right turn only and/or come back with more detail why you wouldn't do that. • What is the height of the second story in back? The total height of the building is maybe 20' tall to the ridge (but he doesn't have a scale). They're not proposing high ceilings in the offices. No motion was made, as this was only a pre -application review. Page 7 of 9 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 31, 2005 V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: In regards to Commissioner concerns about the City's water supply, Mr. Strong reported that it's anticipated that City Council will receive a report from Public Works at their meeting on July 12. He invited Commissioners to attend or watch on TV, as it will be the first discussion of current water resources in the community and what's being done to allocate them properly. In addition, due to the number of crowded agendas, the "formula business" item is being deferred, due to necessary preparation time and time for review by the City Attorney. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Keen Are Commissioners supposed to discuss the Cherry Creek memo from Kelly Heffernon? Mr. Strong replied that was for information purposes only. In addition, he cannot discuss that item due to personal conflict. There was a consent agenda item at a previous meeting for conversion of a pool house on Ruth Ann Way to a second unit. Now, it's become more than he envisioned. It's a huge second story with a zero lot line setback, which really surprised him. Parker • Please speak with Baja Fresh about their illegal sign on the back of the building, especially before others try to follow along. Fellows • What follow-up was there on the Mullahey Ford signs? Mr. Strong replied that he spoke with Mike Mullahey, requesting that he not do it again. In addition, the previously approved onsite sign program removed everything that said "Mullahey", so they will resubmit an alternative sign program. • In regards to the AGCH parking lot remodel, weren't they required to have a landscaped berm and retaining wall? Mr. Strong replied that he will check the plans for compliance. Tait • He requested subscriptions for Commissioners. Mr. Strong replied it was a good publication and he will follow up with orders. Brown What were the final conditions for the canopy columns at Gill's Market? Mr. Strong replied that it was split face block at least partially up the column and paint in a compatible color to the building the rest of the way up, but they have not finished yet, and it is still a work on progress. Improvements were never completed at Philly's and now Mattress Mart is going in. Can the same conditions of approval be required? Mr. Strong replied that he will follow up on this, but previously it was a legally nonconforming use, whereas retail is permitted. What happened with the Harvest Bible Church walkway? Mr. Strong stated that is will be on the ARC agenda for June. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP: On May 27, the dedication ceremony was held for the Traffic Way bridge and Let There Be Lights Phase I. A single donation for Phase II was made. Further donations will be solicited in June and July for the final Phase III. Staff is still running on empty with overburdened agendas. Hopefully, projects will be resolved with recommendations made to Council. The next agenda would be heavy with just one item (Tract 1998), but they will try to do the three discussed (Historic Resources and Whiteley). Page 8 of 9 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 31, 2005 VIII. TENTATIVE AGENDA ITEMS FOR June 7, 2005 MEETING: See "Discussion" above. IX. ADJOURNMENT: The Commission adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m. to the regular meeting of June 7, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. ATTEST: te�L- — KATHY mEWbozA SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION TO CONTENT: COMMUNITY C DIRECTOR (Minutes approved at the PC meeting of June 7, 2005) TIM BR(JWN,m Page 9 of 9 1 1 1