Loading...
PC Minutes 2004-10-19MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2004 - 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Guthrie presiding; also present were Commissioners Arnold and Keen; Commissioners Brown and Fowler were absent. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Assistant Planners Ryan Foster and Jim Bergman and Public Works Associate Engineer, Victor Devens. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold to approve the October 5, 2004 minutes with one correction to insert missing word "good" under Arnold Comments; the motion was approved by a 3/0 vocie vote, Commissioner Brown being absent and Commissioner Fowler being absent the meeting of October 5, 2004. I.A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Memo from Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster re the appeal to City Council of Viewshed Review 04-014, 1470 Sierra Drive. 2. Item III.B. Specific Plan Amendment Case No. 03-001 for Berry Gardens, sub areas 3 & 4, Master Concept Plan, re parking analysis. IIA MINOR USE PERMITS APPROVED SINCE OCTOBER 5, 2004 SUBJECT TO 10 - DAY APPEAL: - as*N,6.,11 A` ElieantAddress� Descri tion a ., Planner 1. PPR 04-006 1 Longs Drugs 1435 E. Grand Ave TFiltered water vending machine. R. Foster The Commission deferred approval of the MUP PPR 04-006 until Discussion Item later in the Agenda. III. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 04-003 & LOT MERGER CASE NO. 04- 001; APPLICANT — OPERATING ENGINEERS UNION, LOCAL 12; LOCATION — FAEH STREET AT HALCYON ROAD. Staff recommended that this item would be continued, due to revised plans not being submitted before Agenda preparation. Commissioner Arnold made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen, to continue this item to the meeting of November 16, 2004, on a 3/0 voice vote, Commissioners Brown and Fowler being absent. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19 2004 PAGE 2 B. CONTINUED ITEM: SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 03-001; APPLICANT — S & S HOMES; LOCATION — SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COURTLAND STREET AND EAST GRAND AVENUE. Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster, presented the staff report to consider an amendment to the Berry Gardens Specific Plan, Subareas 3 & 4, creating mixed-use development standards for approximately six (6) acres of vacant land; stated this project was continued from the October 5, 2004 meeting due to Commission concerns regarding cooperation between the two property owners. Staff met with the two property owners: S & S Homes and Ruth Dea, on October 15 and 18, 2004 to discuss easements and grading. Both owners agreed to seek an independent appraisal (not binding) for the evaluation of the required easements shown on the Master Concept Plan. Commissioner Arnold stated issues discussed at previous meetings (such as parking) had not yet been incorporated or clarified; the easements had not been agreed upon; he would prefer to continue the Specific Plan Amendment until the results of the appraisal were in. In reply to questions from Commissioner Keen, staff replied that the parking standards would be written into the Specific Plan Amendment; the appraisal is only a land value consideration. Both parties have been informed that installation of drainage and utilities would be required prior to entitlements. In reply to questions from Commissioner Guthrie, staff confirmed the mixed-use district would provide for the possibility of residential above Grand Avenue frontage; explained that if sub area 3 were developed separately it would be under parked; if the proposal comes in as a whole both projects would benefit from shared parking; separate development could result in a significant reduction of the commercial retail on sub area 3 in order to meet the parking required. Chair Guthrie opened the item for public comment. John Mack, S & S Homes, stated he did not want this item continued; they had enough information to move their parcel (Phase 1) forward as a concept plan; they would have plenty of parking to facilitate their buildings; he requested the findings be made on what is needed if a continuance is required; agreed that utilities would be split and that they would put them in if their project goes forward first; their parcel is being phased, with building `B' first, building `A' second and the residential component last. Commission Comments: Guthrie: • The parcels cannot be developed separately and still meet the code. • There would need to be an agreement for shared parking first before approval of the Specific Plan, unless each parcel were brought forward to develop independently without an agreement and this would not be advantageous for either party. • To get access from the underground parking you would need a piece of the easement; he would want to see a plan showing the parking if developed separately. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19 2004 PAGE 3 Arnold: • He agreed with Guthrie's comments and would not like to approve this unless the two properties could stand on their own. Keen: • The drawings submitted by the applicant did not reflect the possibility for the projects to stand-alone. John Mack replied that he could bring a working concept plan back to staff showing two stand-alone projects, but the City had told them that they wanted to see joint participation. Chair Guthrie concluded by stating that if a stand-alone project is the way S & S Homes wants to go then a condition for a shared parking agreement would have to be in place first. After further discussion, Mr. Mack stated he thought there could be grounds for a mixed-use parking reduction (maybe 10%). Ruth Dea, owner of sub area 3, asked the Commission if they were going to allow the development of sub area 4 without consideration of sub area 3, or was this going to be two separate developments? Grading and easements have not been discussed fully and if this were not resolved would the Commission accept separate development? Chair Guthrie said the Commission would answer these questions in their comments. Hearing no further public comment, Chair Guthrie closed the item to public comment. Commission Comments: Keen: • Berry Gardens was set up for the two properties to be developed at same time or under the same general plan; this is the Gateway to the City and needs to be a plan that enhances the City. • He did not see why the development of one property should be halted because the other one was not ready to go forward. He hoped the two properties would be designed under the same guidelines and at the same time, but if S & S Homes came back with a plan showing that their project can stand alone (in the parking situation) he could approve it. • If the easement problem does not get solved and sub area 3 (the Dea property) has to develop all their easements out front it will make the development very expensive; the goal of sub area 3 should be to negotiate a contract to get the easements and utilities stubbed in for the future if developed separately. • He would like to see a good understanding of the parking on the commercial area if it is to be developed separately; the mixed-use apartments are too far away and it would not be practical to include the parking. Arnold: • Agreed with Commissioner Keen's comments; he would like to see the two properties developed together. • If after a specific time period the parties do not come to an agreement, he would then allow only the building on sub area 4 to go forward and not the apartments or restaurant (for parking reasons). MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19 2004 • S & S Homes has a very nice project and it would be best to postpone at this time. • If the problems between the two owners with just building 'B' he could approve it. Guthrie: PAGE 4 he would like to see it built, but he thought cannot be resolved and if it comes back On the shared parking, he agreed there could be some allowance for the mixed-use, maybe 10%, especially if building 'B' were office space. It would clearly be an advantage for both to develop at the same time, but he would not like to see either owner "held hostage" in order to develop at a different time. He would like this item continued to 1) resolve what the stand alone properties would look like and 2) what the ultimate outcome of the easement discussions were; he believed the access easements off Grand Avenue and Courtland Street do have to be in place before either one goes forward; circulation, easements and a Plot Plan Review would have to be in place to show how these properties would be developed separately. John Mack asked the Commission if they would still want the shared driveway from Grand Avenue with the stand-alone developments? Chair Guthrie said an agreement would have to be in place for the standalone properties to be developed. Chair Guthrie closed the item to public comment. After discussion with Victor Devens, Chair Guthrie stated that before approval there would have to be three easements in place: two circulation easements and the water line coming in off Grand Avenue. Commissioner Arnold made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen, to continue Specific Plan Amendment Case No. 03-001 to a date uncertain. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Arnold, Keen and Chair Guthrie NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Brown and Fowler. C. LOT MERGER CASE NO. 04-002; APPLICANT — DENNIS SMITH; LOCATION — 567 CROWN HILL ROAD. Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster presented the staff report to consider a Lot Merger to consolidate eight (8) lots and portions of lots, into three (3) single-family residential lots. He explained that the Commission had favorably reviewed a pre -application for this project at its meeting of November 4, 2003; if approved any new homes would be subject to review by the Architectural Review Committee. Dennis Smith, owner 567 Crown Hill, explained where the access driveways were and confirmed that there were no landlocked lots. 1 r MINUTES PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19 2004 In answer to a question from Commissioner Arnold, Mr. Foster stated that the ARC had initiated a redesign of the access (with a pre -app review) because they wanted to preserve the fagade of an existing house (of historical value). Chair Guthrie opened the item for public comment. Hearing no further public comment Chair Guthrie closed the item to public comment. Commission Comments: Arnold: • This design if a much better project and having lot'C' conditioned on the viewshed is a good plan. • He was surprised that the Fire Department only required the rear house to be spinkled and not the other two homes. Keen: • He had no problem with the site. • It was good for the neighborhood to get the lots consolidated. Guthrie: • He agreed that he would also like to see the consolidation of the lots. Victor Devens stated he assumed if the Fire Department wanted the house sprinkled it would be a condition of the Building permit rather than the lot merger. Commissioner Arnold made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen, to approve Lot Merger Case No. 04-002 and adopt: RESOLUTION 04-1938 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING LOT MERGER CASE NO. 04-002; LOCATED AT 567 CROWN HILL APPLIED FOR BY DENNIS SMITH The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Arnold, Keen and Chair Guthrie NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Brown and Fowler. the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 19th day of October 2004. D. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-004; MEDICAL CANNABIS REGULATIONS; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITYWIDE. Mr. Strong requested the Commission continue this item to a date uncertain. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19 2004 PAGE 6 Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, to continue Development Code Amendment Case No, 04-004 to a date uncertain. The motion was unanimously approved on a 3/0 voice vote, Commissioner Brown and Fowler being absent. IV. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. TIME EXTENSION CASE NO. 04-009; APPLICANT — PACIFIC HARBOR HOMES; LOCATION — COURTLAND & GRAND. Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster presented the staff report for consideration of a one-year time extension for Amended Conditional Use Permit Case No. 02-003 (ACUP). He stated that the City had approved the ACUP on September 24, 2002, for the construction of a 108 senior housing complex directly behind the new Santa Lucia Bank building. Mr. Strong explained that if approved this should be a recommendation to the City Council. The Commission had no concerns. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, to recommend approval to City Council of Time Extension Case No. 04-009, and adopt: RESOLUTION 04-1939 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE TIME EXTENSION CASE NO. 04-009 FOR AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 02-003; LOCATED AT COURTLAND STREET AND GRAND AVENUE; APPLIED FOR BY PACIFIC HARBOR HOMES The Resolution was approved on a 3/0 voice vote, Commissioner Brown and Fowler being absent. the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 19th day of October 2004. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Floor Area Ratio standards. Staff was also requesting direction as it related to a specific case —the proposed conversion of an open balcony at 1166 Brittany to an enclosed balcony. Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman, presented the staff report, explained the research in some detail and requested the Commission: 1. Direct staff to research alternative planning techniques that integrate the mass of new homes or additions with existing homes in various neighborhoods. 2. Interpret the current FAR standard with the weighted scale (based upon lot size while eliminating large discrepancies in allowed building size by substantial steps in lot area) in an attempt to distribute FAR in a proportional trend line instead of through a few categories. MINUTES PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19 2004 Commission and staff discussed the FAR item in detail. Paul Wolf, 1166 Brittany, explained why he would like to enclose the balcony on his house and stated he did not intend to make the balcony a living area. Chair Guthrie opened the hearing item to public comment. Mark Vasquez, Design Graphics, commented on the FAR standards: • There are serious inequities in the existing steps that were adopted. • There are many lots in the City that fall into the 40% ratio that are penalized because they do not quite get to the 7,200 square feet to allow them to add on to their home. • The City should look at the sliding scale. It's more equitable. • He suggested that re the FAR, a percentage number be chosen and then build something in for the bulk, but leave a means for adjustment. Commission Comments: Arnold: • He was in favor of the FAR with a limit of 45-50 % across all categories, unless the City wants to look at restricting a certain size square footage. • He also had a concern re the livable space; when looking at the second floor versus the first floor, for example there may be reasons why you would not want to necessarily have livable space downstairs for views or other reasons. • He was in favor of revising the Code so that it makes sense; not creating loopholes and not waste space as land is now so valuable. • Re 1166 Brittany: He had no problem with enclosing the balcony and to allow this would be a creative way to make the home more useful and livable. Keen: • He also had no problem with permitting the balcony enclosure. • When the FAR standard is revised there should be a mechanism to have things like this resolved. He suggested that language such as "if you have a legitimate overage when remodeling it could be brought forward" (and not have to halt the whole project). • He was in favor of the City having FAR standards, but he did not like the problems that it was causing; he agreed with Arnold that there should be a set percentage and have it for all categories so everyone is treated equally, more toward 45%, as on smaller lots the coverage looks a lot larger than it does on a large lot. Guthrie: • He had no problem with the balcony enclosure; he did have a concern with just permitting these to go forward because some housing developments have a certain look, which could be altered by allowing such changes. • He liked the FAR and agreed that there should be one ratio for all with an ultimate cap. Setback rules would control the ultimate scale on smaller lots. • All enclosed space should be included in the FAR not just habitable space. • Re the courtyard effect, he would not like to see a bulk and scale on every project that comes forward. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19 2004 PAGE 8 Mr. Strong concluded by stating the discussion had been very helpful even though it had not specifically addressed. The Multiple Steps table; he believed staff could deal with the enclosed balcony by interpreting that it is not considered floor area in terms of the FAR and not habitable space. Mr. Strong informed Mr. Wolf that staff would report to the Building Department that the Commission is permitting the balcony area to be treated as a non -habitable space. 3. Viewshed Review Case No. 04-015, located at 1120 The Pike. Report by Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster. Mr. Foster stated that this is the first Viewshed Review (first 2"d story) for this neighborhood; after noticing he had received one letter of objection stating that a second story residence would go against the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Foster asked the Commission for direction as after reviewing the findings in the viewshed review process he had found conflicting statements as in: • "Does the viewshed allow reasonable use of the parcel"? (It is a single-family zoning district and two-story is allowed.) • "It has to fit with the existing scale and character of the neighborhood". (At what point is it acceptable to change the existing character of a neighborhood if it is single- family with no design overlay, no height restrictions and zoning district allows for two story residences.) Arnold: • If this were a vacant lot would the Commission be consulted? Mr. Foster stated that as the code states it would probably be permitted, but the language is very vague. Keen: • How extensive was this addition? Mr. Foster replied it was a minor second story addition. • He asked if there was a two-story house in back of the property. Mr. Strong said he had not seen any other two stories in the 300 -foot radius. Arnold: • If two story houses eventually encroached this area, would this then be allowed? Mr. Strong stated that a positive viewshed finding could be made for this addition by stating, "it would not unreasonably affect the scenic views of surrounding properties"; it could then be returned to the Commission as a MUP subject to review and approval. Keen: He could approve viewshed reviews along The Pike because it would not affect the character of the neighborhood, but he would not like to see them in the neighborhood behind this area. The Commission agreed that Viewshed Review Case No. 04-015 should be brought back as a public hearing, noticed and be heard at the November 16, 2004 meeting. The Applicant showed the Commission photographs of some two stories in the area. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19 2004 PAGE 9 Mr. Strong said when this comes back to the Commission it would be presented with a broader neighborhood view and include a map showing where two stories are located in the area. 2. Vending Machines re Outdoor Retail; Citywide: Research paper prepared by Planning Intern, Andrew Bursan. Mr. Strong presented the report stating the filtered water vending machine at Long's Drug store should be added to the list of store front vending machines in Arroyo Grande and that staff is requesting the Commission to: • Discuss the research and the systematic enforcement proposal. • Provide direction or recommendation to City Council regarding existing vending machine locations. Commission Comments and Questions: Keen: • Did staff run this issue through the Police Department? Mr. Strong said the vending machines were not a security problem. • Not having vending machines front the streets would be better visually, but not good for security. • He was in favor of going forward with this. • Would the kiddie rides etc. be included? Mr. Strong said with the exception of newspaper machines all other vending type machines would be included. • Eight vending machines (at Wal-Mart) is too many. • The filtered water vending machine at Long's Drug store is acceptable. Arnold: • The City of Monterey's policy on vending machines is pretty inclusive and he would have no problem with the City adopting this, but the kiddie rides should also be reviewed with respect to the flow of the sidewalk. • Illuminating the vending machines at night can be polluting; Monterey includes these as signs - a good idea. • He did not have a problem with the fee, but did not want to charge a fee for the past. Mr. Strong clarified that they intend to have a business license fee per machine. However, he was asking the Commission if the existing locations should have an amnesty period to resolve the enforcement issue and bring them all up to code. • The concept of the square footage per number of machines should be reviewed. Mr. Strong said a basic allowance could be established for the Minor Use category and changed to a conditional use permit after four machines. Guthrie: • Monterey's policy is very good. • Instead of store square footage, store frontage should be used. • There should be a fee per machine. • He liked the use of the word "minimize" in respect to visibility to the street. Arnold: • The whole issue of whether we want vending machines versus safety should be weighed. Maybe there could be a standard to have them shielded from the side or look more attractive. Mr. Strong said if these go through a Plot Plan process they MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19 2004 PAGE 10 could be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, reviewed by the Commission and the Police Department and included in the Design Guidelines. The Commission agreed that there should be a fee waiver for the initial consideration and suggested that a 60 -day amnesty be given. Mr. Strong said he would notice the stores involved and bring the item back to the Commission. 3. Outdoor Retail Uses in Commercial and Mixed Use Districts. Mr. Strong asked the Commission for a strategy for enforcement of Development Code provisions on outdoor retail uses; stated that there are two apparently legally non -conforming, outdoor retail uses and four zoning violations (apparently created without City approval). Commissioner Keen explained that the outside garden at K -Mart and the Patio Outlet had gradually expanded their operations over several years. Mr. Strong said these would be subject to a use permit, encroachment permit and Commissioner consideration. After further discussion there was consensus by the Commission to notify the four businesses of possible zoning violations, request them to apply for a conditional use permit and that a fee be charged for such outdoor retail use applications. Commissioner. Guthrie said there should be some accommodation for sidewalk sales or parking lot sales. (These are generally Temporary Use Permits.) Mr. Strong said both items would be heard in early 2005 after noticing. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Commissioner Keen had a concern with seeing single -story houses being torn down and two narrow houses being built in their place; he was not against the narrow homes, but two drives next to each other result in there being no place for visitors to park; they end up parking in front of their neighbors house. Parking on these 25 -foot lots needs to be addressed, but he did not know how. Mr. Strong said lot mergers throughout the Western Addition (beyond Faeh, Bennett and Barnett Streets) had previously been discussed, so the City needs to pursue the lot merger process on the interior part of the neighborhood, including guest parking and come up with a design guideline to deal with the narrow houses. Alternative access is needed or maybe alleys. Staff can research, get neighborhood opinions and bring this back for consideration with the Development Code Update for this single-family, residential district. Multi -Family will be dealt with first, then an overlay district may be suggested to resolve parking and access solutions. Chair Guthrie stated that in reviewing the 2004 Annual Report to the State, he was surprised at how much had been achieved and gave congratulations on all the achievements. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP: Mr. Strong gave the Commission updates on: 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19 2004 PAGE 11 • Council decision not to adopt the 2003 Housing Element Update; staff would attempt to resubmit to HCD for preview before the end of the month with subsequent direction from the Commission. • Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon was out on medical leave, which is a major trauma for the department. • The Department has two new interns that are working half time. • City Council will reconsider the Wells Fargo trip generation on October 26, 2004. • The Viewshed Review appeal case for 1470 Sierra Drive had been appealed to City Council. VIII. TENTATIVE AGENDA ITEMS FOR NOVEMBER 16, 2004 MEETING (NOVEMBER 2, 2004 MEETING CANCELLED DUE TO ELECTIONS). No discussion. IX. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. on a motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Arnold. ATTEST: i iL A JAREARDON-SMITH, MESRIE, CHAIR SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT- R6t S RONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR (Approved at PC meeting of 2004) 1 1 1 1