Loading...
PC Minutes 2004-05-041 1 MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 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, Brown, Fowler and Keen. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. AGENDA REVIEW: Discussion Item No. 2 heard first due to the number of citizens present to hear this item. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of April 20, 2004 were approved on a motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Arnold with a correction requested by Commissioner Fowler to reflect that in her opinion the new bank at the Gateway to the City on Grand Avenue did not look too high. The motion was approved on a 4/0 voice vote, Commissioner Brown abstaining. I. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. II.A. MINOR USE PERMITS APPROVED SINCE APRIL 20. 2004 - SUBJECT TO 10 - DAY APPEAL: Viewshed Review 04-005 Don McHaney 140 Ruth Ann Way 660 sf 2nd floor addition plus 810 D. Javid (The original Agenda sf second floor open deck at rear incorrectly noted this of house. address as 344 Tally Ho) Arch Review 04-004 Steve Herring 309 Whiteley St Addition to home: add 2 A. Koch bedrooms, new kitchen, new laundry room, replace one car garage with 2 -car garage and 1 - bedroom granny apartment. Arch Review 04-005 Peter and 130 Whiteley Install vinyl siding on exterior of J. Bergman Susan Hunt existing house and garage Commissioner Brown asked for clarification on the parking at 309 Whiteley. Mr. Strong said one of the bedrooms on the secondary dwelling was eliminated so there is sufficient parking with a two -car garage and an open parking space for the secondary dwelling exclusive of the driveway. The Commission has no further concerns. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Discussion Item No. 1, 344 Tally Ho: Deferred to the next meeting agenda at the request of the applicant. 2. Discussion Item No. 2: Viewshed Review Case No. 01-005; Applicant - Craig & Debbie Fisher; Location - 834 Willow Road. MINUTES PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 Mr. Strong gave the background on this item, explaining that in September 2001, after mailing notices to addresses intended to be the surrounding property owners and receiving no objections, the City approved the Viewshed Review application. On April 23, 2004, after receiving inquiries from some neighboring property owners asking why they had not been notified and upon review of the file, it was determined that the mailing list prepared for the applicant by a title company for the applicant contained addresses from an incorrect APN book to an area outside the City. The City did not realize the error until after construction started and the neighbors called. In addition, the City received complaints regarding a container placed on the street with an encroachment permit being issued by the City for construction materials. Upon investigation it was found that the container was being used for storage of household goods due to the remodel. The applicants were advised of the error in noticing and the City requested the container be removed from the street which the applicants did. It was determined that due to the advanced state of the remodel that it was too late to consider the Viewshed Review and the applicants were informed of this. Concerns by the immediate neighbor regarding the window overlooking their property have been addressed. Chair Guthrie opened the hearing for public comment. Lana (last name not given), 828 Willow Lane, believed at the time of her complaint that the remodel could have been stopped and also re the container complaint it could have been removed earlier; she was also upset that they had not received notice of the two- story addition. Lonnie (last name not given), 816 Willow Lane, questioned why the City did not come out earlier to see the two-story addition after receiving the complaint. Donna Shaw, 828 Willow Lane, stated that the Fischer's had told them they were just building a small room; stated that the windows are really big and the addition is huge and that after they complained it seemed like the addition was rushed through. David Treden, 17 Creekside Drive; stated he now has big windows facing his house; complained that he had bought the house for his retirement and since then three, two story houses have been built in the area only one of which he recalls notice of remodel; he was unhappy about the change in the environment; he requested five trees to be planted along the property line to provide a buffer of the addition. Evelyn Scarborough, 839 Willow Lane; concern that Mr. Fischer did not inform them correctly of what they were intending to build; the addition blocks their view of the San Luis hills from their living room; that it has devalued their property; does not like the design, looks like a box; concern that this may become a two family structure because she had seen plumbing going in; concern that construction was not stopped right away after the neighbor's compliants. Bonnie Rice, 827 Willow Lane; concern that the container was allowed on the street for such a long time and that it had caused a hazardous situation. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 PAGE 3 Chair Guthrie closed the hearing to the public. In reply to questions from the neighbors, Mr. Strong apologized for the error in noticing in September 2001 (he was not on staff at the time) and stated the City has since improved their noticing method in an effort to avoid this happening in the future and further stated: • The City was unaware of the noticing error until after the addition to the house was fully under way; the building permit was not issued until a year after approval of the Viewshed Review. • The placement of the container was not illegal; the City issued a permit for the container and after the City found out it was being used to store household items the applicants were given five days to remove the container. • The two-story addition only partially obstructs the view of the neighbors across the street. • The first day of the complaint from the neighbor of not being noticed he had inspected the new addition and the next day had consulted with the contractor regarding windows that overlooked the one neighbor's property; the neighbor was now satisfied with the windows. • This addition cannot become a secondary residence without additional review due to parking regulations. Commission Comments: Brown: • This could be a problem in the futureif the applicant intends to use this as a second residential unit and if this is the case should be addressed now. Can modification of this extension be legally required — such as windows and buffer issues? Mr. Strong stated he did not believe it could be legally required; stated that he believed he had addressed all the concerns that he could at this stage, he had: o Removed the container; revoked the encroachment permit; requested cooperation and modified the window placement overlooking the only adjacent yard (there is a substantial distance between the back windows and the rear yard fence and between the front windows and the houses across the street). Keen: • Just because there is plumbing in the new room it does not mean that this will be a secondary residence; if the plans show a bathroom then this would be normal. Arnold: • Agreed with Commissioner Keen's comments; stated that if this had originally come to the Planning Commission for review it would probably have been approved because there are already other two stories in the area (precedent set). • In the future, due to land values, the City is likely to see much more of this. • He would like the neighbors to try to cooperate. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 PAGE 4 Fowler: • Does not like viewshed reviews as they often cause problems. • Would like to see the neighbors try to adjust to this. • If the windows need to be changed maybe this could happen; she was not sure about requiring trees as a buffer. Brown: • Viewshed reviews are always difficult. • Believes it is too late to stop this. • The applicants are not present, but would like to hear their intentions for the future. • There has not been good neighborhood communication; he would like to see some conditions modified to address any concerns and advised neighbors to talk to City Council if not satisfied. Guthrie: • Unless there is a kitchen included this is not a secondary unit. • Does not believe this should come back for a second review as there is no'legal precedent to enforce; it is an approved project; there would probably not be a different result if it did come back for review. • He would like to see follow up on the windows to provide privacy for the neighbors as a voluntary and informal action. Arnold: • Concurred with Chair Guthrie's comments. In conclusion Mr. Strong informed the neighbors that: • An appeal can be filed with the City Clerk within the next ten days. • He would call the Fisher's (applicants) to follow up on the raising of the windows unless the neighbors adjacent to the west to not require this. • He would do the best he could to correct an unfortunate error by asking the Fishers cooperation with landscaping screening for privacy. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CASE NO. 04-001; APPLICANT — GREG KLOSINSKI; LOCATION — 426 CROWN HILL. Staff report prepared and presented by Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon. Ms. Heffernon described the property in detail and explained that the applicant was requesting a Certificate of Compliance to clarify the legal status of the two lots. Public Works has reviewed the documentation for these lots and determined that the two lots were legally created. Ms. Heffernon stated staff recommends that Certificates of Compliance be made an administrative permit process along with the Development Code Update. In reply to Commission questions, staff clarified some information regarding the maps: MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 PAGE 5 The Commission unanimously approved the recommendation to make Certificates of Compliance an administrative or procedure and asked staff to come back with a Development Code Amendment to address this requested change. The Commission had no further concerns. Chair Guthrie opened the hearing for public comment and hearing none closed it Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brown approving Certificate of Compliance Case No. 04-001 and adopting: RESOLUTION 04-1924 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CASE NO. 04-001 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 439 EAST BRANCH STREET AND 426 CROWN HILL, APPLIED BY GREG & DEBRA KLOSINSKI The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Brown, Arnold, Fowler and Chair Guthrie NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 4th day of May 2004. B. AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 04-001; APPLICANT — WELLS FARGO BANK; LOCATION — 911 RANCHO PARKWAY. Staff report prepared and presented by Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon. Ms. Heffernon explained that this was a proposal to consider an amended Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Case No. 96-541 by allowing a financial office use in a portion of Building "J", of Phase II, of the Five Cities Shopping Center in Planned Development PD 1.2. Ms. Heffernon described the proposed changes: • Change on existing doors- replace with full glass windows; • Enlarging the front door; • Installing stucco in place of glass for the ATM machines; • The back of the building will remain unchanged; • The ARC has recommended approval of two 31 -square foot signs (this does not include any signage on the back of the building); the signage will not be approved until the ACUP has been considered. The primary concern raised by the CUP Amendment is how the parking and circulation will be affected within Phase II of the shopping center. The parking study shows that the proposed change in use for lease space from commercial retail to financial institution would not adversely impact the parking configuration or the ability to provide MINUTES PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 sufficient parking for Phase II. Traffic congestion is also a concern as the SANDAG trip generation chart shows that approximately three times the trips (over retail generated trips) could be generated with a "stand alone" bank. However, staff does not believe this use will generate much more traffic, as this shopping center will be used for multiple purposes. When an application comes forward for Pad 'I' (final pad), staff will look at a more detailed parking and traffic analysis, including the problematic driveway intersection of Phases I and II on Rancho Parkway. In reply to a question from Commissioner Fowler, Ms. Heffernon stated that this building has been vacant for four years. Commissioner Arnold stated it is well known that there is a problem with the circulation (getting in and out of the two sides, Phase I and Phase II), and asked if there had been consideration of closing one entrance on Phase II where it aligns with Phase I? Ms. Heffernon said this could be addressed at the Traffic Commission if requested. Chair Guthrie asked if trip generation had been included for the two ATM's? Ms. Heffernon replied that she did not have this information, but if further environmental review was required this could be done. Chair Guthrie opened the hearing for public comment. Susan Ambrosia, Wells Fargo Bank, explained details of the proposal and said she would be happy to answer any questions. Commission Comments: Keen: • Does the existing parking lot lighting meet the standards for ATM's? Ms. Ambrosia replied that they would have to do a photometric study and modify the existing if required. • Was there any discussion with the Police Department re the placement of the ATM's? Mr. Strong replied this was discussed at the SAC meeting. Dave Pintard, Investec, stated they would have their architect address the circulation of traffic from Phase I and II when Pad 'I' comes forward for consideration and they were aware that the cross traffic is a problem. In addition, he stated he had a letter from the State Board of Equalization (copy given to staff) showing that in 2002 the Five Cities Center generated retail sales tax revenue in the amount of $719,120 for the City, and this figure does not include Pad T. This was substantially more tax revenue than projected when the shopping center was being considered originally (3$55,000 estimated). Chair Guthrie closed the hearing for public comment. Commission Comments: MINUTES PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 Keen: • The parking lot lighting around the ATM machines should be addressed. Arnold: • No further concerns. Fowler: • The Hallmark store in the center will be delighted if the bank goes in because they would like to see more foot traffic. Brown: • He would like to see this go forward even though he is aware of past sensitivity to this area. Chair Guthrie: • He had no problem with the substitution of the bank for retail since it has been sitting vacant; on the traffic generation in terms of the entire project he did not think it would be a big enough issue to require another study at this time. When the last project goes in he would like to see further study for better solutions for the two driveways on Rancho Parkway. Victor Devens, Public Works, state the City has not yet accepted the improvements, as the developer has not yet fulfilled their obligations (provided "as built" drawings of all improvements), so if there is an adverse situation the City has means to correct it. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold to recommend that City Council approve the Amended Conditional Use Permit Case No. 04-001 and adopt: RESOLUTION 04-1925 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 04-001, APPLIED FOR BY WELLS FARGO BANK, LOCATED AT 911 RANCHO PARKWAY (FIVE CITIES SHOPPING CENTER, PHASE II) The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Arnold, Fowler, Keen and Chair Guthrie NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 4th day of May 2004. C. AMENDED CUP CASE NO. 04-002; APPLICANT - LDS CHURCH; LOCATION - 751 S. TRAFFIC WAY. Staff report prepared and presented by Planning Intern, Andrea Koch. Mr. Strong said this project has been withdrawn indefinitely. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 IV. NONPUBLIC HEARINGS: None. PAGE 8 V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Secondary dwelling yard and other exceptions, 344 Tally Ho: The applicant for this has requested a postponement of this due to a death in the family. 3. Viewshed Review 01-005, 834 Willow Lane: Already discussed at the beginning of the meeting. Commissioner Arnold asked about the Minor Use Permit, Viewshed Review 04-005, 140 Ruth Ann Way not discussed earlier. Mr. Strong explained that they had one comment from the adjacent neighbor and today will begin the 10 -day appeal period. Commissioner Arnold said he believed this would not be an issue, but he did believe this will start a precedent and as this moves up the hill for other properties it may become a problem. Chair Guthrie asked if this addition would exceed the FAR? Mr. Strong replied that it was up to the max, plus an open deck. The Commission had no other concerns with this proposal. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: There was a discussion on AB 2702 re second units. Mr. Strong said locally we have established criteria for secondary dwelling units and are having some problems that precludes us from bringing them into compliance. We may consider going into an amnesty program for existing units so we can address public health and safety issues. Commissioner Brown asked for an update on the removal of the oak tree on Pine Street. Mr. Strong stated Dan Hernandez, Parks & Recreation Director indicated that the arborist's opinion reported the tree dead and dangerous and in City right of way. Commissioner Brown asked if the City could require a replacement program to set an example? Mr. Strong said there are specific regulations in place, but we could schedule this for a Planning Commission Agenda item. Commissioner Fowler stated she would be absent the next meeting (May 18, 2004). VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP: The Council did consider the Pre -application on the Robiscotti project re the building character and they had similar concerns with the architecture but not with the use; he believed the Commission would see this come back as a Conditional Use Permit for Mixed Use, Commercial, Office and residential in a commercial character design. VIII. TENTATIVE AGENDA ITEMS FOR MAY 18,2004: Discussion on the Dotson Time extension: Mr. Strong said current development current fees will apply to the time extension. Mr. Devens said this time extension will now be conditioned to provide fossil filters. 1 1 1 L__J MINUTES PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 IX. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. on a motion from Commission Arnold, seconded by Commissioner Fowler. ATTEST: LYN REARDON-SMITH, ME GUTHRIE, CHAIR SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION ?' AS TO CONTENT: ROB STRONG;" COMMUNITY DEVEL MENT DIRECTOR (Approved at PC meeting of May 18, 2004) r-7 II 1