Loading...
PC Minutes 2004-07-061 1 CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Guthrie presiding; also present were Commissioners Arnold, Brown and Fowler; Commissioner Keen was absent. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, and Planning Intern, Andrea Koch. AGENDA REVIEW: No Changes APPROVAL OF MINUTES: No Minutes. I.A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None III. PUBLIC HEARINGS: MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 6, 2004 - 6:00 P.M. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Fax received July 6, 2004 from Dennis Law, Andre, Morris & Buttery, re proposed GPA 04 -002 for Noyes Road property (Public Hearing Item III.A.) II.A. MINOR USE PERMITS APPROVED SINCE JUNE 29, 2004 - SUBJECT TO 10- DAY APPEAL: ase No 1. 2. Viewshed Review 04011 Viewshed Review 04-010 Applicant Ernie Ped Ray & Kathleen Valdez 651 Mulberry Lane 252 N. Elm Street ►escrption T '' 2nd story addition. 2 " story addition. ann€ J. Bergman J. Bergman The Commission had no concerns. Mr. Strong stated the Minor Use Permits would be approved after a ten -day appeal period. A. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04 -002; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — NOYES ROAD. Staff report prepared and presented by Associate Planner, Teresa McClish. Mr. Strong presented the staff report, Ms. McClish being absent. He explained that the Commission were to review a City Council initiated General Plan Amendment (GPA) to consider change of land use designation from Conservation /Open Space and Single Family Residential -Low Density Planned Development to Conservation /Open Space and Single Family Residential -Very Low Density Planned Development, affecting approximately fifty three (53) acres at the northwest edge of the City on Noyes Road. He then stated the highlights of the report; stated that this GPA would cause a reduction in the maximum number of units allowed from 35 to 21; the pre - application had not yet been submitted to the Commission, but had been reviewed by the Staff Advisory MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 6, 2004 Committee; on July 19, 2001 the Commission recommended on a 3/2 vote for Conservation /Open Space on this parcel (for one dwelling unit per parcel). Mr. Strong answered Commission questions re the staff report. Chair Guthrie opened the hearing to the pubic. Dennis Law, Attorney representing Castlerock, addressed the contents of the letter he had submitted to the Commission stating that it appeared that the proposed action had come from their submittal to the City of a preliminary application for Tract 2651 (a 35 residential unit). Chair Guthrie closed the hearing to public comment. PAGE 2 Condensed Commission Comments: Brown: • He had no problem moving forward with the amendment as discussed given the information and his previous vote (which was for a lower density). Fowler: • Stated this was a perfect place for clustered development as it was in an area with the same density and a road was available. She had voted against the open space designation before and would not vote for a change now. Arnold: • He could vote for 21 units as long as they were in a clustered type development (as 35 was too high). Guthrie: • He did vote for lower density before and even though things may have changed this parcel was a long way from public services; he could support a change in the GPA for the 21 units. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold to amend the General Plan Land Use from Conservation /Open Space and Single Family Residential - Low Density Planned Development to Conservation /Open Space and Single Family - Very low Density Planned Development for an approximate 53 -acre property located on the south side of Noyes Road at the northwest edge of the City Limits owned by ASCG and Sandstone Holding Corporations with an amendment to: • Include a clustered planned development of a maximum density up to 21 units. AYES: Commissioners Brown, Arnold and Chair Guthrie NOES: Commissioner Fowler ABSENT: Commissioner Keen 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION . JULY 6, 2004 V. NON PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. TIME EXTENSION CASE NO. 04 -005; APPLICANT — RICHARD BLANKENBURG; LOCATION — 1052 E. GRAND AVENUE. Staff report prepared and presented by Planning Intern, Andrea Koch. Ms. Koch stated this was a one -year time extension for a Lot Line Adjustment and a Conditional Use Permit. The time extension is being requested for the project because Condition No. 8 has not yet been satisfied due to a delay caused by the City. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold approving the one -year time extension for Conditional Use Permit 02 -003 and Lot Line Adjustment 02- 001. The motion was approved on a 4/0 roll call vote, Commissioner Keen being absent. The applicant for the next project was not present so the Commission heard Discussion Item V. next. V. DISCUSSION ITEM 1. Amendment to Tract 2328, Stonecrest, Drainage. and Access Driveway Grading and improvement Plans: S & S Homes and Howard Mankins Mr. Strong presented the staff report and explained that five of the 26 homes under construction include a private road easement potentially providing access to two adjoining Multiple Family zoned, undeveloped parcels owned by Howard Mankins; a condition was included that stated the project access road should be designed to allow future extension to these undeveloped parcels with two -way traffic along the easement. Howard Mankins is now pursuing, drainage and access driveway grading and improvements to enable construction of this future extension (staff agree that this should be pursued now). Mr. Strong then further explained the road easements, slope bank, grading, drainage and ditch involved in the improvements. In conclusion, Mr. Strong stated that negotiations are continuing, but any change to the approved tract would require City approval; the houses close to the roadway are nearing completion and if the grading is not accomplished before they are sold there is potential for misunderstanding between buyers and S & S Homes. S & S Homes and Howard Mankins are not ready to submit grading plans to the City, but the City would like to get this accomplished by Oct 1, 2004. Mr. Strong answered Commission questions. Chair Guthrie opened the hearing to the public. PAGE 3 Mr. Mankins, 200 Hillcrest Drive, stated they had owned this 50 -foot easement for 25 -30 years and a condition had been included for Stonecrest to assure that a two -way access easement to his property would be included, but S & S homes had been allowed to build for one -way traffic. In conclusion, Mr. Mankins stated that a proposed revised plan be submitted for the 50 foot easement (except for one area which was on his property) so the curb and gutter would not have to be torn up, and that he be allowed to extend the MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 6, 2004 PAGE 4 utility while the road is being torn up; that he have controlled access and that the buyers be notified of the drainage and easement (prefer a recorded document) and the revised plan be brought to the Commission for approval. Mr. Strong answered further questions from the Commission. Mr. Strong recommended that the revised grading and drainage concept be approved by the Commission and reported to City Council. Chair Guthrie closed the hearing to the public. Commission Comments; Arnold: • Encouraged the two parties to come to an agreement. Guthrie: • He could agree to approve the change in grading and some reasonable accommodation be made to extend any utilities that would interrupt the quiet enjoyment of the homeowners. The Commission agreed to approve the changes if they come forward. B. PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. 04 -011; APPLICANT — RUSS SHEPPEL; LOCATION — OAK PARK AND JAMES WAY. Staff report prepared and presented by Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon. Ms. Heffernon gave an overview of the proposal for a phased Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development composed of residential units added to existing offices and fitness club uses; stated that the parking arrangement does not fit current parking standards; there will be an entrance only on the Kennedy side and exit only on the Sheppel side (creating a looped driveway) and is subject to continuing monitoring that will be re- evaluated in February 2005. Victor Devens, Public Works, added the following comments for Commission consideration: • Existing utilities would have to be relocated. • The present wastewater line from this project (County collection line) is at capacity; the City should not grant occupancy until a relief line in place (could be one to two years); there are other projects already approved not yet connected to this line. • Traffic report would be required. Although this was not a public hearing Chair Guthrie opened the discussion for public comment. Kim Hatch, Pults & Associates, handed out site plans and answered some of the Commissioners concerns; stated the applicant would like an interpretation from the 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 6, 2004 Commission on the "top of bank" issue so they could decide how to move forward with the project. Chair Guthrie closed the public discussion portion. Commission Comments: Arnold: • He would have a hard time assessing this project until the entry and exits have been determined if they will work or not. • Need to see cross - sections of how top of bank would work. • He had a concern with regard to traffic on the four units closest to James Way, but he did not have a problem with the concept of residential use at this location. Fowler: • Agreed with Commissioner Arnold on the parking issue. • Creek issue— should be site specific. • Parking not resolved and not yet working. • A viable project — she liked how it overlooks the creek. Brown • Parking is a big issue and he would not approve deviations unless they were clearly justified. • The top of bank issue would also affect other properties and he would like to have further confirmation from other sources on this. Guthrie: • Liked idea of residential fronting the creek. • He would have concern for residents as the commercial flows all the way through this site. • He was fairly comfortable with the "top of bank" issue. • Had concerns about how parking would be controlled. • Does not think the exit only will work. • He liked the carports. • Some concerns about the office space in this project (displacing needed employee parking). Mr. Hatch stated originally they had looked at commercial development for this site and the residential seemed to be a better solution to relieve parking; they do want to develop the land and next time will bring a full package for the Commission to review. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Commissioner Brown will be absent the next two Commission meetings. PAGE 5 VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None VIII. TENTATIVE AGENDA ITEMS FOR JULY 20, 2004 MEETING: No discussion MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 6, 2004 IX. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. on a motion by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Fowler. ATTEST: AS TO CONTENT: .s- L'YN REARDON- SMITH, SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR (Approved at PC meeting of July 20, 2004) PAGE 6 J MES GUTHRIE, CHAIR 1 1 1