Loading...
PC Minutes 2003-11-04MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Guthrie presiding. Present were Commissioners Brown, Fowler and Keen. Commissioner Arnold was absent. Staff members in attendance were Acting Community Development Director, Kelly Heffernon and Associate Planner, Teresa McClish. AGENDA REVIEW: There were no changes in the Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of October 21, 2003 were approved as is. Commissioner Fowler abstained. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS : None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS; None NOTICE OF MINOR USE PERMITS APPROVED SINCE OCTOBER 21, 2003: No Minor Use Permits had been approved since the last Commission meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM III.A: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 03 -004 & TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 03 -045; APPLICANT — MILLISSEE K. THOMPSON; LOCATION — 1169 MAPLE STREET. Staff report prepared and presented by Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman. This item to be continued to a date uncertain. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM III.B: CONTINUED ITEM: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 03 -005; APPLICANT * CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE. Staff report prepared and presented by Associate Planner, Teresa McClish Ms. McClish described the proposed Development Code Amendment, stating that this was the second in a series of actions initiated by City Council Resolution 3699. The proposed ordinance contains the implementing regulations for several policies required in the 2001 General Plan. Included in the proposed ordinance are regulations for agricultural buffers, findings required for subdivisions and rezoning applications, mitigation requirements and revised use regulations and property development standards for the agricultural district to provide flexibility for agricultural operations. Ms. McClish discussed the proposed buffer regulations including the proposed Agricultural Preservation Overlay District AG -2.2 consisting of a 100 foot perimeter surrounding Agriculturally zoned properties to acknowledge and address the urban /agricultural interface within the City. Chair Guthrie and Commissioner Brown asked questions clarifying allowed development on parcels within the proposed overlay MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA NOVEMBER 4, 2003 PAGE 2 district. Ms. McClish responded that accessory uses appurtenant to existing uses and residential remodels are examples of actions not affected by the proposed overlay district and buffer regulations. New residential uses, including second residential dwelling units may be allowed on a property adjacent to an agricultural district but not within the 100 foot overlay district. Commissioner Keen asked if non - residential structures could be allowed to be built within the overlay district. Ms. McClish answered yes. Ms. McClish asked the Commission to consider the following revisions to Exhibit "B" to the proposed ordinance after consultation with the City Attorney. 1) In proposed section 16.12.170E. Agricultural Buffer. No. 1, the second sentence would be amended as follows: To minimize potential conflicts between agricultural and nonagricultural land uses, including the protection of public health, the reduction of noise and odor, and the reduction of risk to farm operations from domestic animal predation, crop theft and damage and complaints from neighboring urban dwellers, all new development adjacent to any designated agricultural districts as for farming shall be required to provide an agricultural buffer. A third sentence is proposed to be added: "Development" as used in this section means subdivision of land, use permits, and building permits for new residential units. 2) No. 5. the third sentence is proposed to be revised as follows: An easement agreement in the form approved by the City attorney shall be recorded which shall include the requirements of this article section or, at the Directors' city council's discretion the property shall may be dedicated to the city in fee title. 3) In proposed section 16.12.170.F. No. 2 is proposed to be revised as follows: the first sentence should indicate a ratio of 2:1 instead of 1:1. The third sentence is proposed to be replaced by the following; The fee shall be established by City Council Resolution which shall be reviewed periodically to ensure that the fee is adequate to offset the cost of purchasing agricultural conservation easements on a ratio of up to 2:1. 4) No. C. is proposed to be deleted. 5) No. G is proposed to be replaced with the following; Agricultural mitigation land consisting of contiguous parcels shall be preferred. Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing Karen Estes, 811 E. Cherry Ms. Estes spoke against the buffer overlay proposal stating that the City would have to accept liability for the buffer and that there is a loss of use of her property. Ms. Estes 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA NOVEMBER 4, 2003 PAGE 3 suggested that the buffer be placed on the agricultural parcels since agricultural spraying is the reason a buffer is necessary. Otis Page, 606 Myrtle Street Mr. Page stated that the proposed ordinance is inconsistent in application in that there are other properties containing prime farmland soils that are not protected and that the Commission should look at this. He referred to the Stillwell property as an example. Bill Summerfield, E. Cherry Ave. Mr. Summerfield stated that the proposal protects farming at the expense of residents. The buffer should be on the agricultural property since there are far fewer property owners that would be affected by the buffer overlay compared to 95 residential property owners who will be affected. Mr. Summerfield suggested that farmers could use organic farming techniques for the agricultural land adjacent to residential areas. Chair Guthrie closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Keen asked for clarification on the first sentence of proposed section 16.12.170E.2. Agricultural Buffers. Ms. McClish proposed the following wording: The buffer area shall be a minimum of one hundred feet, measured from the edge of the designated agricultural district. Commissioner Brown asked for clarification on the section 16.12.170F.e.2. Agricultural Preservation. Ms. McClish proposed the following wording: The agricultural mitigation land shall have adequate water supply to support agricultural use and the water supply on the agricultural mitigation land shall be protected in the agricultural conservation easement, the farmland deed restriction or other document evidencing the agricultural mitigation. Both wording changes were acceptable to the Commission. Commissioner Brown requested further clarification on the allowed uses within the proposed buffer overlay district. After some discussion, the Commission decided that the definition of "development" that was proposed earlier in Section 16.12.170.E.2 was sufficient. Commissioner Keen stated that he is in favor of the proposed buffer restrictions for new development but that he is against the proposed buffer overlay district. Commissioner Keen stated that the Right To Farm provisions were adequate for the purposes of notification of property owners. Chair Guthrie questioned the appropriateness of the 2:1 mitigation ratio for lands outside the City limits in the area of Environmental Concern, which is quite large. The mitigation would not be adequate in that it would not provide permanent protection for lands within the City limits which is the intent of the regulations. The City could use in lieu fees to get whatever land would be available for permanent protection, inside or outside the City. Chair Guthrie stated that he would be in favor of removing the requirements for 2:1 mitigation for lands outside the City. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA NOVEMBER 4, 2003 Commissioner Keen questioned the effectiveness of in -lieu fees for this purpose and that by eliminating the potential ability to seek mitigation land outside the City would prevent any conversions because land inside the City in not likely to be available for mitigation. The commission clarified with staff that the proposed buffer overlay district is intended to prevent further residential development within 100 feet of any agricultural district that may otherwise occur through ministerial building permit issuance. Without the proposed overlay section the buffer regulations proposed in section 16.12.170.E. would apply to all discretionary actions adjacent to agricultural districts. Chair Guthrie recommended that the Commission break their discussion on the proposed ordinance into three categories, mitigation, buffer requirements for discretionary new development and the proposed buffer overlay district. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Chair Guthrie, that the Commission approve the mitigation requirements proposed in Exhibit "B" section 16.12.170.F. as amended by staff. The commission clarified that the motion did not include the removal of the 2:1 provision for mitigation lands outside the City Limits. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Guthrie and Keen NOES: Commissioner Fowler ABSENT: Commissioner Arnold Chair Guthrie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen, that the Commission approve the buffer requirements for discretionary new development in Exhibit "B" section 16.12.170.E. including revisions proposed by staff. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Chair Guthrie, Keen and Brown NOES: Commissioner Fowler ABSENT: Commissioner Arnold Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Chair Guthrie, that the Commission approve the proposed overlay district in Exhibit "B' section 16.28.020.C. The motion failed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Brown and Chair Guthrie NOES: Commissioners Fowler and Keen ABSENT: Commissioner Arnold PAGE 4 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA NOVEMBER 4, 2003 Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Chair Guthrie, that the Commission approve the remaining portions of Exhibit "B ", amended sections 16.16.040.E., 16.20.060.E., 16.20.070.C., 16.28.030 and 16.28.040. and adopt: RESOLUTION 03 -1909 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 03 -005; AMENDING TITLE 16 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCORPORATE REGULATIONS REQUIRING ADEQUATE FINDINGS FOR SUBDIVISION OR REZONING OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS, IMPLEMENT MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS AND REVISE LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Guthrie, Fowler and Keen NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Arnold the foregoing resolution was adopted this 4 day of November, 2003. PAGE 5 NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEM IV.A: PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. 03- 016; APPLICANT — AGENE GRIGG; LOCATION — 563 S. TRAFFIC WAY. Staff report prepared and presented by Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman. Mr. Bergman gave an overview of the proposal to convert two houses on one lot into two separate single - family residences on two separate lots, and add a garage to the house on the uppermost elevation. Records indicate that this lot has had civil litigation in the past. Mr. Grigg clarified that the second residence on the property is a single - family residence, not a two -unit rental. Planning Commission comments: • Chair Guthrie recommended that the proposed garage would need to have a normal driveway /apron leading to it. If the lot split occurs, he would prefer that it be split into two 6,000 square foot lots, not a 7,200 square foot lot and a 4,800 square foot lot, which may not be feasible due to the slope and terrain. • Commissioner Keen does not want the lot to be split. He would prefer that the existing single - family residence and second unit remain on the single parcel. • Commissioner Fowler likes the idea of splitting the parcel into two separate lots. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA NOVEMBER 4, 2003 • Commissioner Brown indicated that a lot split would result in two non - conforming lots. The resulting two single- family lots with increased demand for parking and traffic. He is not in favor of splitting the lot. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEM IV.B: PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. 03- 015; APPLICANT — MARY GUERNSEY - SMITH; LOCATION — 567 CROWN HILL. Staff report prepared and presented by Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster. Mr. Foster gave an overview of the proposal to consolidate the existing eight (8) lots into three (3) lots and build a new residence on each of the three lots. Discussion comments: • Commissioner Brown asked if splitting the eight lots into two lots would be a better fit for the neighborhood. The Planning Commission observed that the proposed split into three lots would make it consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. • Mr. Smith confirmed that the lot slope is at about a 7 percent grade. • Staff indicated that several residences would be served off of the proposed driveway, eliminating the need for multiple driveway accesses onto Crown Hill, which would serve the neighborhood well. • There was discussion about turning radiuses for the residents' automobiles at the rear of the residences. • The existing residence was originally owned by the Bennett family. The property owner may attempt to move and reuse the front wall of the old residence by incorporating it into the new residence. • The Commission responded favorably to the pre - application. • The Commission wants sidewalks and underground utilities to be considered for this project. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEM IV.C: PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTION OF REVISED PLANNING COMMISSION BY -LAWS - RESOLUTION NO. 03 -1908. Commissioner Fowler made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen to amend the Planning Commission By -laws and adopt: RESOLUTION 03 -1908 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDING THE BY -LAWS The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Fowler, Keen, Brown, Guthrie NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Arnold the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 4 day of November, 2003. PAGE 6 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA NOVEMBER 4, 2003 DISCUSSION ITEMS: The Commission expressed concern about Oak tree preservation related to underground trenching for utilities. A project was recently approved that required deep underground trenching on Pine Street. Staff will discuss the situation with Public Works. The Commission asked Staff to research and handle the situation related to a letter received from Donald Martin. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None. ADJOURNMENT — The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. ATTEST: ,g,a, LYKI REARDON- SMITH, SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: ROB / RO G, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR PAGE 7 El / GUTHRIE, CHAIR