Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 2003-06-17ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None Chair Guthrie closed the public hearing. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE SPECIAL MEETING — PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2003 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 P tanner, T eresa M cClish, A ssistant P lanner, R yan F oster a nd P lanning I ntern, Jim Bergman. AGENDA REVIEW: - Items II.D & II.E were switched. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - The minutes of May 20, 2003 were unanimously approved as written. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS II.A - CONTINUED ITEM - VARIANCE CASE NO. 03 - 002 & TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 03 -003; APPLICANT — KEITH SLOCUM; LOCATION — 159 PINE STREET. Staff report prepared and presented by Ryan Foster, Assistant Planner. Ryan Foster gave an overview of the proposal to subdivide a 0.35 -acre lot into two residential lots with a variance to deviate from the minimum lot depth and width of flag lot access. In reply to Commissioner's questions he stated that the lot is just 6" shy of being subject to a minor exception and that there are other lots with similar configurations in the City. Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing. Keith Slocum, applicant, answering Commissioner's questions stated that: • The distance to property line is 11'6 ". • A smaller driveway is possible, but he would prefer not to remove the chimney. • He could move the garage to the back of the house, but it would create the situation where the side yard becomes the back yard. Mr. Strong gave examples of other properties having similar lots. The Commissioner's said the applicant could either: 1. Remodel the house to allow wider access. 2. Deny Parcel map but gain approval for variance of lot depth but not stem width and come back with a new map. Mr. Slocum said he would remodel the house to allow wider access. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, to recommend that the Variance be approved for lot depth, but not for the stem width of 11', and adopt: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2003 PAGE 2 RESOLUTION 03 -1877 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE A PPROVING VARIANCE 03 -002, LOCATED AT 1 59 PINE STREET, APPLIED FOR BY KEITH SLOCUM The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Arnold, Fowler and Chair Guthrie NOES: Commissioner Brown ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was adopted this 17 day of June 2003. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 03 -001; APPLICANT — CAROL HOON; LOCATION — 621 EMAN COURT. Staff report prepared and presented by Jim Bergman, Planning Intern. Mr. Bergman gave an overview of the proposal for a lot line adjustment between two parcels for better utilization of the land. In answer to questions from the Commission staff stated: • There should not be any cost to the City for maintenance in the creek flood control easement. • The creek setback easement is included in the lot size. Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing. Jim Kerring, Engineer, answering a question from Commissioner Brown said they did not intend splitting Tots. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, recommending approval of Lot Line Adjustment 03 -001, and adopting: RESOLUTION 03 -1878 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 03 -001 FOR TWO LOTS LOCATED AT 605 EMAN COURT AND 193 SOUTH ALPINE STREET, APPLIED FOR BY CAROL HOON The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Fowler, Arnold, Keen and Chair Guthrie NOES: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was adopted this 17 day of June 2003. 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2003 PAGE 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 03 -003; APPLICANT - CONNIE CETTI; LOCATION - 200 NELSON STREET. Staff report prepared and presented by Teresa McClish, Associate Planner. Ms. McClish gave an overview of the proposal to convert a residence into a commercial /retail space and stated the applicant is proposing adaptive reuse to open an antique store including an ADA ramp, window treatment and new paint. In answer to Commissioner's questions Ms. McClish stated that the in lieu fee alternative for parking was arrived at by working with Public Works is reviewing fees established in different communities and the use of the Nelson Street parking study to come up with a price. Staff is prepared to bring forth a parking ordinance for Village Mixed -Use. Rob Strong commented that: • The parking fee is approx. $4000, but this project is outside parking district. • Option of using other parking lots, but city could provide 10 additional on- street spots at Nelson Green. • Bid for this possible City project is $45,000 so one spot would be $4,500. • Setting a good example of what to do for mixed -use in residential setting. Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing. Connie Cetti, the applicant, showed the Commission a photograph and plans of the project and stated that she prefers in lieu fees so the entire property would not be made into a parking lot. Larry Turner, 221 Short Street, spoke in support of the project. The Public Hearing was closed. The Commissioners had the following concerns and comments: • Does the in lieu fee exist and what is happening with the fund? • Is the fee amount right? • The project would be a nice contribution. • Undergrounding utilities should be waived • In the future a more representative parking fee should be assessed. Ms. McClish stated that an Administrative Sign Permit would be required for the sign. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, recommending City Council approve Conditional Use Permit 03 -003 with the following changes to Exhibit «A„ • Condition #15: All new electric boxes be installed inside. • Delete Condition #22: Undergrounding requirement, and adopt: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2003 PAGE 4 RESOLUTION 03 -1879 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 03 -003, LOCATED AT 200 NELSON STREET, APPLIED FOR BY CONNIE CETTI The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Arnold, Brown, Fowler and Chair Guthrie NOES: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was adopted this 17 day of June 2003. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 02 - 006; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — VILLAGE OF ARROYO GRANDE. Staff report prepared and presented by Teresa McClish, Associate Planner. Ms. McClish explained that this amendment was to revise the zoning map and Title 16 of the Development Code, Chapters 16.04, 16.08 16.12, 16.16, 16.22, 16.36, 16.48, 16.56 to rezone the Village Commercial District and portions of the Office District and General Commercial District to Village Core Downtown, Village Core Mixed -Use, and Village Residential and Single Family Residential. Ms. McClish answered Commissioner's questions: • The process will be to eliminate columns of the old table as the steps of the Development Code Amendments are taken for each district or area. • Appeal provisions are unchanged. • Proposed consent agenda is a way of reporting what has been approved by a MUP to the Commission and the public. Currently there is an administrative appeal period, but there is no noticing so nobody is aware. A 10 -day appeal period may remain or ten day appeal period could commence with Planning Commission • Second hand store definition: the classification is primarily as a book store so classified as general commercial, secondhand stores will need a little more review. (Mr. Strong suggested - one alternative is to extend the sentence to say secondhand stores do not include establishments that primarily sell used jewelry, old coins, stamps, musical instruments, entertainment media, and collectibles which are considered general retail). Ms. McClish then stated that this is a draft document; further refinements can be made after further public hearing. Commissioner Guthrie opened the Public Hearing. Frank Freitas, 1604 La Vanitas, San Luis Obispo: • Attachment 2: Request for 122, 124, and 124'/2 Allen Street to be included in VMU. Approx 14,000 square foot lot currently zoned Single Family should be Village Mixed -Use zoning. Neighboring lots to west are proposed VMU, so would fit in well. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2003 PAGE 5 Nancy Underwood, 142 Short Street: • Concerns of homeowners and residents within the area and adjacent areas should be addressed while rezoning is occurring. Hours of businesses may be disruptive. Need to limit hours. 8 -5 p.m. does not impact neighbors because many are leaving village area when residents are coming home. • Parking — we try not to park on street because like to see use of green space, but proposed additional parking is dangerous (traffic as well). Need speed bumps. • Density is an issue as well, especially with zero setbacks. Ed Dorfman, 285 La Cresta, owner of property on Le Point: • VMU makes a lot of sense, likes the flexibility in density, but question about height. 35' and three stories would make more sense and provide for better land use. The Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner's Comments: • How should the building height be appropriately measured on a sloping site? Mr. Strong stated the Development Code defines building height and there are provisions for taking it from the natural grade within the center of the project; there can be interpretations if the lot is steeply sloping. • Do not want to go over 30' max, but agree with the three stories. • Are we creating a greater parking problem with three stories? • On commercial building an elevator cannot go into a 30' building without height exception. • 30' is restrictive for commercial buildings, so VCD should be bigger and VMU smaller, so more opportunity for commercial development. • Recommend use of same language from yard setbacks and /or where abuts residential district use a max building height of 30' or 2 stories • Development Density: Should not always round up, but use normal averaging. Mr. Strong stated the proposed density equivalent calculation gives the ability to create fraction or 1 unit density by varying the size of the unit. • Pg 266: Suggest eliminate "D ", because there would be more chance of integrated mixed use than vertical mixed use ( "D" might bring about Tess desirable projects. • Why eliminate "D" because it only makes a suggestion not a requirement? • "E ": Require minor use permit "within x -many feet of occupied residential" is a better solution than having every business that will be open past 6 p.m. have to get a minor use permit. • If we have an in -lieu fee for parking then it should be representative of the cost of acquisition and construction. • A $4,500 fee is a lot for a small business. • There is already a parking space requirement of one per 300 square feet and proposing 70% and 60% reduction for parking may be " workable if we have significant shared use, but in many instances we won't have usable shared use. • Maximum parking should be per 250 square feet to discourage uses that would need massive parking to succeed. • Being out of parking is a big deal, so in lieu fee is appropriate where a more intense use is proposed. Needs to be a reasonable amount to achieve parking spaces. How do we arrive at a dollar amount? Mr. Strong stated the Parking Committee and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2003 PAGE 6 the City Council need to complete further study, b ut f ormula should not be in the Development Code, but should be a separate Council Resolution. • Disturbed by current parking requirements, "shall provide onsite parking ". It will be disruptive to Village Core Downtown (VCD) if we provide for onsite parking in VCD. Instead we want ability to say we do not want you to provide onsite parking, but should require in lieu fee or shared offsite parking solution. Less concern is VMU for on -site lots, but still need off -site in -lieu alternatives. • Lots at 122, 124, and 124 1 /2 Allen Street in VMU should be included. Ms. McClish explained the current zoning has a line through the middle of the lot, and previously it was viewed as a residential use and in previous residential land use designation. There is an ambiguity. • Commissioners Arnold, Fowler, Keen and Chair Guthrie were all in favor of including the Freitas Tots as requested by the owners. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen, recommending the Public Hearing be continued to the meeting of July 15 2003. The motion was unanimously approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Keen, Arnold, Fowler and Chair Guthrie NOES: None ABSENT: None AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION STAFF PROJECT CASE NO. 03 -004; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE. Staff report prepared and presented by Teresa McClish, Associate Planner, and Jim Bergman, Planning Intern. Ms. McClish presented the report addressing policy alternatives concerning the conservation of prime agricultural lands in Arroyo Grande. Chair Guthrie opened the hearing for public comment. Otis Page, 606 Grove Street: • Disagrees that there was not an in depth study with General Plan Update. • Suggest another hearing to review study or have more open work sessions • The farmers and landowners had not been surveyed a nd we a re playing with the farmer's money. There should be an in -depth discussion with farmers. • Controversial history of Ag Study, suggest that focus should be a lasting work, not temporary. If document has failures then it will be turned down by the City Council or the next City Council. In its current state, the document will not stand the test of time • Personal issue: Accused of not being a friend to agriculture, but it is not true. Wants to s upport the farmer i n a ny way, a nd s hould also d ignify a nd h onor the farmer's property rights. • Conservation easements price not defined. • Better to say no conversion than to be hypocritical. Jeffrey Garcia, 2587 Villamont Court, American Farmland Trust, Camarillo: • Not a problem isolated to Arroyo Grande, but nation -wide. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2003 PAGE 7 • Support staff work and the process of involving the public. • Clarify conservation easements; voluntary tool (1 option ) to give farmers relief from pressure of development; offers liquid assets in lieu of development rights, retain property rights. It works and is used nation -wide. Dixson Ranch has done it locally. Because of the flexibility (there are term easements), it can work anywhere. • Support perpetuity and inclusion of agriculture in planning. • Applaud research and creative techniques proposed by staff. • There are funds available with Coastal Conservancy for preservation. Connie Dunbar, 507 Launa Lane: • Wonderful land in the City that can never go back once it is paved over. • Sense of community, public health, and intangible benefits should be remembered. • CA used to feed the world and that ability is rapidly being lost, even the ability to have locally grown crops. • Should preserve our Ag -based way of life. Ella Honeycutt, 560 Oak Hill Road: • Ongoing issue, we have the finest farmland. • Land will go quickly because people want to move here. • Look at the farmer who wants to farm. Farmland protection is a priority. • Going through the plan, pages 30, 32, 33 (buffer): Buffers should not be on the farmers back, but on the developer who wants to develop around them. Page 34 transfer of development rights is a questionable tool. With easements US dept of Agriculture should be mentioned. There are funds available to be used for easements • Water development and marketing important. Planned residential clusters involving prime soils are a bad idea in the City. Specialized housing for farm workers is needed. • SLO has purchased thousands of acres of open space at a much less cost than the freeway overpass. If we develop the farmland, we have to build many more things. Ed Dorfman, 285 La Cresta: • Agree with buffer zones for farming, and that residential development as well as agriculture needs to have the buffer zones. • County is currently gaining farmland, and additional housing is necessary. • Rules keep changing on property. • Farming is a business and some parcels will not make economic sense to continue farming. • Housing needs to be infill and also on the fringes. • Take a survey and see what people want to do with their property. • Housing is cheaper in flat land and we need affordable housing. Coreen Saritari, 512 Laona Lane: • Has been farming for 25 years. • Issue of people not being compensated for others enjoying the view of the open space and land. • Right to develop taken away when compensated for staying in farming. • Can produce so much here, and agree with staying in agriculture. Leroy Saritari: • Page 36, Disagree w/ clusters because encroachment will still happen. • What is in agriculture should stay in agriculture; other means of compensation can be looked at. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2003 PAGE 8 Jim Dickens, 769 Branch Mill Road, City Councilman: • American Farmland Article: "Farming on the Edge." Why we are doing what we are doing; addresses conservation easements. His family took initiative to try Conservation Easements. • Highest quality land under the most pressure development report: food and open space in the path for development. Prime land is converting 30% faster. • Although farmland increasing, the highest quality soil here in AG is not expanding. How much land is left? Most fertile land is disappearing fast. CA lost 85,200 prime acres. Wasteful land use is the problem, not growth. • Need to increase funding for conservation easements, target funds to most valuable areas, promote planning that does not encourage conversion of prime soils. • Conservation Easement is a deed restriction I andowners v oluntarily p lace on their property to maintain Ag usage of property. P roperty o wners h ave r ights. It's not about selling away rights to public use. Retain rights to farmland, use land as collateral for a loan, and many other property rights. Gives options for the future of their farms. Can be compensated for the speculative value of development planned for their property. • Process deals with a fair market value (easements). If at any time unhappy with the agreement, can back out. Believes in property rights and this tool gets us there. • Unique because property was under the Williamson act. Stephanie Painter, 541 Mesa View Drive, Ranch Owner: • Not a one -sided decision, need to consider the farmers and the developers. • Farming affects the environment as well. • Inside the city, have already allowed development on Ag land. People have purchased land in hopes of developing it. How can we say no to these people, but not to the previous people? • There are unique pieces where farming is difficult where neighborhoods are encroaching. Many places in the city where this is true, but the decision has to be practical. Development is already there, encroaching on prime Ag land, and we have to live with what we have done. • If impossible to make a living on that land then it should be developed instead of other non - infringed areas. • Difficult decision to make but everyone's needs should be addressed Want more workshops before decision is made. Susan Flores, 529 East Branch: • Very complicated issue • Two important things: 253 acres of class 1 soil in 1991 and 235 in 2001, health problems around homes built around small Ag land. • More workshops needed to further understand Ag land issues. • Need Ag land info, what is the land producing? What are we utilizing? • How is a Bed and Breakfast an Ag land use? • Need to find funds for the farmers who want to farm. • The Public Hearing was closed. Staff answered questions from Commissioners: • Mr. Strong explained that there are findings outlined in the Williamson Act that outline changing conditions before allowing Williamson Act cancellation; there is a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2003 PAGE 9 need to distinguish between logical expansions and illogical conversions; conservation easements that are mutually agreed to would be better; staff could do conversion findings in addition to subdivision and use permit findings. • The gradation of former floodplains are generally Class 1 and 2. As you progress toward edge, slightly sloping or further up slope start getting into Classes 3,4,5,6. They take more water, pesticides, and more management. May have drainage problems, but they can be productive. They are not considered prime. Not necessarily farming an uneconomic piece, but not necessarily more appropriate for conversion. • Ms. McClish answered questions on the Buffer ordinance. • Mr. Strong answered questions on easements. Commissioner Brown: • Under what circumstances are we going to look at prime soils? Do we believe it is an irreplaceable resource or not? How can we protect it fairly with a lasting document? • Farm d oes n of h ave to be a ctively f armed t o be a valuable r esource. H as to be looked at as classl soil over the long term • What are ramifications of political pressure to make farming a problem on that property and where does that leave the landowner 30 years down the road with an easement? • Have to develop a mechanism to inform Ag landowners and that we will do something about keeping the land that ways. • Should actively develop a road map for funding sources, a document that would be a resource base for anyone interested in what the resources are and how to use them. Commissioner Fowler: • Believe in property rights and the right to farm, conservation efforts, and the conservation easements. The person that wants to have the say in the use of land should have financial interest in the land. Commissioner Arnold: • Property rights: rezoning should benefit community, not the individual. Shouldn't be able to rezone after buying land. If land becomes unusable, it can be rezoned, so no taking. Just because farmland could make more money by building condos, the community as a whole should want that. Building on Ag land would not be in the best interest of the community, so should not be rezoned. • Redevelopment districts have the power to break deed restrictions, but that may be a real risk. Commissioner Keen: • All the programs are voluntary, which is important because the farmers should have the right to farm or sell their property. Farmer also has rights to do other things with the property. Hate to take away property rights. Don't create a situation that makes it impossible to farm the land. • If in easement could you come out when land is not producing any longer? • City is responsible for promoting property rights not dictating to the farmer what to do with their land. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2003 PAGE 10 Chair Guthrie commended staff on complete document and commented: • With an honest appraisal potential for reasonable discussion to ag land conversion. • Buffers are the key, but need more expert input on what reasonable buffers are • County has more expertise about buffers and should be used. • Mitigation measures are reasonable, and should include land that is also adjacent to the city, and will need funds for protection of the Ag land • Would like to know what staff needs. We do need another meeting. • Need to discuss buffers specifically and conservation easements Mr. Strong said Robert Hopkins, who consulted about the General Plan and ag buffers, passed away prematurely and was a tremendous loss to the County. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, to recommend continuing the hearing to the meeting of July 15, 2003. The motion was unanimously approved on a 5 -0 voice vote. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. DISCUSSION ITEMS: - None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: - None COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: Mr. Strong gave the Commission an update on the Creekside Center EIR project stating that City Council did not approve the EIR and that they had requested more information on the traffic circulation and historic buildings. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. on a mot' •n by Chair Guthrie, seconded by Commissioner Brown, and unanimously approved KRISTIN KRASNOVE, COMMISSION CLERK S TO CONTENT/ ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPM NT DIRECTOR JAM GUTHRIE, CHAIR 1