Loading...
PC Minutes 2000-06-061 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER Chair Greene called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL X Commissioner Costello X Commissioner Keen X Commissioner London X Vice -Chair Parker X Chair Greene APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of May 2, 2000 were continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 21, 2000. ITEM I. I.A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Carol Berger, 285 Hillcrest Dr, explained to the Planning Commission that the street between Hillcrest and El Camino was deteriorating and some kind of walkway /sidewalk needed to be installed in this location. There was no place to ride bicycles or for the children to walk to school along this street. Ms. Berger stated that it was an extremely dangerous area and she felt the City should do something about it. 1.B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Excepts from the Arroyo Linda Crossroads Traffic Analysis and the Wildan Associates Traffic Analysis for Tract 2207. ITEM II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS II.A. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 00 -002; LOCATION — 390 CANYON WAY; APPLICANT — CATHLINE BENSON Associate Planner Kelly Heffernon presented the staff report and stated that the applicant was proposing a parcel map that would subdivide a 3.22 -acre site into three parcels averaging 1 acre in size. Ms. Heffernon explained that a single - family residence along with several Oaks and other non - native trees currently exists on the property. The existing residence would remain, and the other two parcels would be sold as custom home lots. No trees would be removed as a part of this application. Ms. Heffernon further stated that the property was located at the end of Canyon Way and was recently annexed to the City as part the Village Glen project. The front portion of the site is relatively flat and then slopes up steeply to the southwest. Since the Development Code does not allow grading or building on slopes greater than 25 %, the tentative map delineates this steeper area of the property as prohibited for any future development. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 2 The proposed subdivision meets all relevant Development Code requirements, including lot size, depth and width. The one remaining Development Code issue is with regard to the Undergrounding of utilities. Commissioner London asked if only one pole were removed how would this work for the utilities on the west side of the project? Craig Campbell, Public Works Department, stated that the request was to leave all the utilities along the one line in place and only underground the wires along the frontage of the property. Mr. Campbell pointed out to the Commission exactly which poles would be effected. Mr. London stated that at a previous Commission meeting they had discussed the issue concerning buildout and the adequacy of the water supply. One of the Commissioners had suggested that this should be included in each submission that would add impact to the water situation so the Commission could keep track of this situation in terms of the buildout. He asked about the adequacy of the water supply with regard to this project? Mr. Campbell stated that in the future staff could include this information for the Planning Commission. As far as this project was concerned, all of the water planning documents indicated that the City has an adequate water supply to buildout the City. He did not think that the three units associated with this project were considered when the water planning documents were created, however he did not feel that these three units would create an impact that would cause any problem. Commissioner Keen referred to Condition of Approval #13, which stated that "all residents further than 150 feet from the access driveway shall be fully sprinkled (fire sprinklers) ". In the notes from the SAC meeting where this project was discussed stated that if the homes were within 150 feet of a fire hydrant they would not need to be sprinkled. He questioned if these homes needed to be sprinkled or not? Mr. Campbell replied that the Fire Department typically measures the distance from where the fire truck can park and where the hose lays to all parts of the structure. Vice -Chair Parker asked if in approving this parcel map the Commission was also approving the road site? Would the road be 24 feet in the tract and 20 feet on the emergency access road? Ms. Heffernon replied that the road site specifications and issues were approved at the time of the approval of Tract Map 2265. Mr. Campbell stated that when Tract Map 2265 was approved, the Commission approved that the access road should be paved at 20 feet wide with two (2) foot shoulders for a total width of 24 feet. Commissioner Costello asked what the rational was behind the City requiring the undergrounding of the overhead wires, and is there a practical, as well as visual, reason for the utilities being underground? Mr. Costello also asked if this line went on to service other areas or was this a dead end? ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 3 Kerry McCants, Community Development Director stated that undergrounding the utilities is primarily an aesthetic consideration, which is ultimately based on the public health, safety and welfare. Mr. Campbell stated that the practical side to undergrounding the utilities was rather minor, other than the occasional wire coming down, there is no other reason that he is aware of. With regards to the areas this utility wire services, he believes it is a dead end although there are some residents that are served off to the side. Vice -Chair Parker and Ms. Heffernon discussed the lot size requirement for RR zoning. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. Bruce Buckingham, representing the applicant, spoke to the Planning Commission and gave a brief overview of the project and what had been previously approved by the Commission with Tract 2265. He further explained the applicant's reasons for requesting the waiver of the overhead utilities. Kirby Gordon, attorney for Ms. Benson the applicant, spoke to the Commission in favor of the project. Wayne Fresby, 291 Canyon Way, stated that he would not like to see a "tie -in" to Printz Road, as it would make Canyon Way an alternate for highway 227 and he asked if a water line and sewer line were going to be installed at the same time as the road was being built? Mr. Campbell stated that there was no "tie -in" planned to Printz Road with this project or Tract 2265 and in fact the completion of these two projects would subdivide the property and there would be no opportunity to "tie -in" with Printz Road. This project, as well as Tract 2265 will have sewer and water. Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Costello asked if there was room for further development to the east of the project? Mr. Campbell replied that there was not room for further development as it was mostly built out. Vice -Chair Parker had further questions about the undergrounding of the utilities. She asked if the City had ever offered to dismiss the undergrounding of utilities because they did not service the subject property? Mr. Campbell stated that in the past some judgement calls had been made at the staff level where this had been required. The determination has always been if the utilities have fallen within six (6) feet of the boundaries. He stated that the Commission has been faced with this question before and there have been times when the Planning Commission had granted the developers some relief from this requirement. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 4 Chair Greene stated that the Development Code did not talk about the Planning Commission getting involved with making the decision on undergrounding the utilities. Only the Community Development Director or the Public Works Director have the discretion to make this decision. He asked if Mr. Campbell believed that the Development Code authorized the Planning Commission to make these kinds of decisions? Mr. Campbell replied that staff, after reviewing the Development Code and discussing this issue, believed that the power that is granted to the Community Development Director and the Director of Public Works is very limited. Their ability to grant an exception can only be based on the fact that, because of issues like topography, it is infeasible to do the undergrounding. As far as the Planning Commission's authority, staff has looked at the General Exception capability under the standards of land division on page 93 as giving the Commission the authority to approve exceptions to standards. The Planning Commissioners discussed the project and stated that they were in favor of the project and also in favor of granting the exception to undergrounding the utilities. Chair Greene asked that Condition of Approval #32 regarding the overhead utilities, in view of the fact that the Planning Commission has the discretion, be amended to permit the overhead line to remain. Staff stated that they would modify the Exhibit which the Condition refers to so that it would reflect the Planning Commission's wishes. Commissioner Costello moved that the Planning Commission adopt: ROLL CALL VOTE YES Commissioner Costello YES Commissioner Keen YES Commissioner London YES Vice -Chair Parker YES Chair Greene RESOLUTION NO. 00 -1744 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 00 -002, LOCATED AT 390 CANYON WAY, APPLIED FOR BY CATHLINE BENSON with Exhibit A as amended. Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: II. B. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 99 -003, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 99 -003; LOCATION - 1171 ASH STREET; APPLICANT - SUTTON'S CONSTRUCTION ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 5 Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner, stated that the project site is located on the south side of Ash Street between South Elm and Walnut Streets, and is roughly a half -acre in size. A single - family residence exists on the front portion of the property, which is proposed to remain. One 24" diameter oak tree also exists on the site that appears to be in excellent health. The applicant has indicated that he will try to avoid tree removal, however staff recommends that this issue be settled with more certainty tonight. She said that the applicant was requesting approval of a Tentative Parcel Map and Planned Unit Development to create three parcels and construct two new single - family residences. A 20 -foot wide shared driveway would access the two new lots to the rear of the property. Ms Heffernon stated that the property is located within the Condominium /Townhouse zoning district, which is intended for development of small lot single - family and multi - family residential dwelling units with a maximum density of 9 dwelling units per acre. The applicant was proposing 3 units on a half -acre site, which is within the allowable density. The applicant is seeking approval of a Planned Unit Development to deviate from the minimum lot size, lot depth, lot width and setback requirements of the Development Code. The project meets all other Development Code requirements, such as the maximum lot coverage, number of guest parking spaces and amount of private open space. Finally, Ms. Heffernon stated that the applicant was also seeking an exception from the Development Code regarding the Undergrounding of utilities. A total of 3 utility poles and related overhead wires are subject to the undergrounding requirement. The Development Code does offer some relief to this requirement if the Public Works Director and Community Development Director determine that certain conditions cause the undergrounding of utilities "impractical" or "infeasible ". Both the Public Works Director and Community Development Director have reviewed the applicant's request and concluded that the undergrounding requirement is not "impractical" or "infeasible ". The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission consider the circumstances outlined in the letter and grant the exception. The objection is based primarily on financial reasons, stating that the Undergrounding costs would render this project infeasible. To date, staff has received one letter in response to the public hearing notice, which is included in the staff report as Attachment 6. Owners of the property located behind the project site are concerned primarily with the narrow access and future development potential of their property. They feel that the proposed access and orientation of the residence on parcel 3 would prohibit them from developing their property to its full multiple - family use. Staff spoke with the City Fire Chief regarding the situation who stated that the neighbor's access would be sufficient so long as all of the units are fully sprinkled. In closing, Ms. Heffernon stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 00 -1745, approving Tentative Parcel Map 99 -003 and Planned Unit Development 99 -003, subject the conditions of approval. Commissioner Keen stated that the subject parcel was only 1 10 by 120 square feet. He asked ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 6 if this was too small to subdivide? Also on page five (5) of seven (7) of the staff report it stated that one of the set backs on Parcel 3, is 3 feet. He asked if this was on the back property line or on the interior /side line between the two newly proposed residences? Ms. Heffernon stated that it was the back property line. Vice Chair Parker stated that at the ARC meeting of September 13, 1999 there was some discussion concerning the fireplaces. She asked if these were wood burning fireplaces and if those were allowed in the City? Ms. Heffernon stated that she did not know if wood burning fireplaces were allowed. Ms. Parker had a question about Conditions of Approval, Numbers 35 and 37. These two conditions dealt with curb and gutters and the widening of Ash Street, respectively. She asked what they needed to improve on Ash Street? She also stated that the Conditions of Approval required a street tree maintenance easement. She asked if there was such an easement on Ash Street? Craig Campbell, Public Works Department, stated that this was being required to improve the line up with the existing curb and gutters. With regard to the street tree maintenance easement, Mr. Campbell stated that this was required with any new subdivision and that this requirement started about twelve years ago. Commissioner Costello stated that the development would have five (5) retention basins on it. He inquired what the depth of these basins would be and where the water would go from the retention basins? Mr. Campbell replied that these were infiltration basins. He stated that the applicant had calculated the depth of the basins, which would be one -half foot to two (2) feet deep. Commissioner London asked if the driveway was an easement or was it owned by the property behind? He stated that the owner of the property had expressed some concern that the fence footings could present a problem as far as the drainage. Is there something in the drainage plans that address this problem? Furthermore, the property owner is concerned about this project encroaching on his property. Is this a valid concern? Mr. Campbell stated that the project as designed would capture all the drainage in the proposed basins . The natural drainage is from the subject property to the property in the rear and therefore this fence would not present a problem. With regards to any encroachment by this project, this project approval does not include any approval to encroachment on the driveway. Chair Greene stated, with regards to the undergrounding of utilities, that it was his understanding that the proposal was to remove the pole at the southwest corner of the parcel. Then the wires running along the property line of 1169 and the adjoining property would be put underground to the existing pole. That pole would remain. Mr. Greene asked if this was correct? He also asked if Mr. Campbell would summarize the applicant's objections to this proposal. 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 7 Mr. Campbell explained where the wires would be placed underground. He went on to say that that the applicant felt this would be an excessive financial burden to do the undergrounding along the west property line for both poles one (1) and two (2). Chair Greene asked Ms. Heffernon about the Oak tree that the applicant feels might have to be removed to build a patio? Mr. Greene referred to sheet A -1 of the submitted plans for the site and floor plan for Parcel 2. He stated that at the top of the plans there is an Oak tree noted and asked if this was the tree staff was referring too? Ms. Heffernon stated the tree Mr. Greene referred to was the one staff was referring to, and that staff was not clear about what the applicant was proposing. Staff was asking the applicant to clarify this. Mr. Greene asked Ms. Heffernon what type of clarification staff was looking for and where in the Conditions of Approval this should be placed? Ms. Heffernon stated that if the applicant was proposing to remove the tree then staff would like a condition that states that the applicant is required to replace the tree at a three (3) to one (1) ratio. Staff would like the landscape plan to reflect exactly where the replacement trees would be put. If the tree is to be retained, then staff would like tree protection measures observed. Mr. Green asked if the patio was not installed, could the tree be saved? Ms. Heffernon stated that she felt that the applicant could best answer the question. Commissioner London asked where the proposed driveway was to be installed? He also asked where the utility poles would be on the property? Ms. Heffernon stated that the proposed driveway was on the west side of the property and the existing driveway borders the east side of the property. The poles are on the property line adjacent to the newly proposed driveway. Commissioner Costello asked what other development is likely in this area that would be required to underground utility poles? Mr. Campbell stated that this area is mostly built out and he did not see any development in the near future that would be required to underground any utilities. Mr. Costello asked what the ratio of lot coverage would be if the covered patio was installed? Ms. Heffernon stated that the patio was not included in the plans at this point and if it exceeded the maximum allowed it would be included as part of the PUD deviation. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 8 Tim Tiessen, 725 Shell Beach Road, Shell Beach, architect for the applicant gave a brief history of the project. He explained that the issue of the overhead utilities was addressed at the SAC meeting as well as site drainage. He explained to the Planning Commission that the site drainage was dealt with by stepping the garages and placing down spouts to the driveway and having the driveway drain toward the street. This way the neighbor to the rear of the project would not be effected. The existing residence does drain onto the rear property now, however, this will be rectified with the new project design. Mr. Tiessen stated that the biggest issue was the undergrounding and he did not feel this was ever resolved. Staff informed the applicant that he could write a letter to the Planning Commission asking for some relief from the undergrounding. Staff explained that it was not in their jurisdiction to waive the undergrounding request. Mr. Tiessen stated that had he known that this letter was going to be presented at the Planning Commission meeting he would have gone into more depth with his explanations. On Friday, when the applicant received the staff report was the first time that they had seen Exhibit A showing the underground requirements that staff was requiring. Mr. Tiessen handed out an exhibit to the Planning Commission that he felt better explained the utility poles and wires and would help him explain the reasons the applicant was requesting a waiver. Mr. Tiessen stated the following reasons the applicant was asking for the condition to be waived: • A very substantial transformer serves the existing adjacent Senior Housing. The applicant felt that these wires should have been placed underground when the senior housing was built. It should not be Mr. Sutton's responsibility at this point to do this. • The line on Ash Street would require Mr. Sutton to underground the utilities on the existing neighboring residence. The owner of this residence has made it very clear that she does not want any one coming onto her property and doing any construction. • The applicant has met with P.G. & E. and discussed the cost of doing the undergrounding which he, Mr. Sutton, will discuss with the Planning Commission. • At the extreme north end of Ash Street, there is an existing pole with a large transformer which serves three -(3) residences, as well as the senior housing. • Cost is a definite factor for the applicant. As far as the covered porch which would be an addition onto the house on Parcel 2 is concerned, the owner is stating that the Oak tree is not there, however the civil engineer is saying it is. The patio could be removed if necessary. Finally, Mr. Tiessen stated that the three (3) foot setback on Parcel 3 that was questioned is on the north side of Parcel 3 and that is only in the area where the fireplace would be. To his knowledge, this was allowed by the Development Code. Furthermore, the fireplaces will be gas. Commissioner London stated that, in the diagram Mr. Tiessen handed out, the power lines cross each other. Mr. London asked if they were both power poles and is one across Ash Street? Mr. Tiessen stated that the one that paralleled Ash Street is telephone and cable and the one ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 9 across the street is the main power source. Mr. Tiessen further stated that to underground the pole across Ash Street the applicant would be required to go underneath Ash Street and then install a transformer and a vault at the right hand corner of one of the residences. Then they would have to dig across the neighbor's property to the middle power pole and place another transformer and vault within the neighbor's property and connect to the senior housing. The applicant would also have to tie in to another neighbor's property. Commissioner Keen stated that the undergrounding requirements were very clearly spelled out in the Development Code. He stated that this could not have been sprung on the applicant at the SAC meeting. To what extent did the applicant believe they had not been told exactly what had to be done? Mr. Tiessen stated that they did not know the full extent of the undergrounding until they had seen the staff report on Friday. In response to Commissioner Keen's question as to whether the applicant had a letter in writing from P.G. &E. stating the cost of the undergrounding, Mr. Tiessen stated that P.G. & E. costs would be in the range of $30,000 to $50,000 but that they refused to put anything in writing until they have an engineered plan and a deposit. Vice -Chair Parker asked if P.G. &E. had underground pipe in place already to run the wires through so that the street would not have to be dug up? Mr. Tiessen stated that P.G. &E. did not have anything in place to aid in undergrounding the utilities on Ash Street. Commissioner Costello expressed his concern about the inconsistent statements about the existing Oak tree. Chair Greene asked about Mr. Sutton's position about the request to underground the utilities that run east /west on Ash Street? Mr. Tiessen deferred the answer to that question to Mr. Sutton. Mr. Greene asked if staff had had the opportunity to see the letter from Mrs. Boswell stating that she did not want the utilities put underground on her property or the exhibit Mr. Tiessen had distributed to the Commission? Mr. Tiessen stated that staff had not seen this before tonight's meeting. Bill Dyer, 531 Oceanview, Grover Beach, representing the applicant stated that in the event that the utilities had to be put underground on Parcel A, the subdivision Map Act allows the City to acquire a right of way by eminent domain. Commissioner Keen stated that to his knowledge the Planning Commission had never approved individual drainage basins on private property. He said that there were very good reasons why this had not been done. There would be no way of the City preventing the owner from filling it ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 10 in. He felt that the City should not approve these basins for this project. The City could possibly end up being responsible for damage done if someone filled in a drainage basin and then one of the other houses flooded. He felt that the applicant should be required to have the property drain to the street. Mr. Tiessen stated that the reason the project had been designed this way was because the property slopes away from the road and the only way to fix this was to build a retaining wall at the back of the property and bring in fill. Bill Sutton, applicant, stated that he had had a meeting with the City and explained his understanding of what he was required to do with the undergrounding of the utilities. He did not have any problem moving the power lines if they were power lines only. However, because it deals with the transformers, it was much more involved. He also stated that the next door resident does not want her power put underground. Mr. Sutton stated that he did not have any problem with moving the cable and phone lines. Furthermore, Mr. Sutton stated that he had brought the undergrounding of the utilities to Mr. Campbell's attention from the very beginning and he stated that he had told Mr. Campbell that if he was going to have any problems with this issue to please notify him. Mr. Sutton stated that he had never been notified. He also stated that he had told Ms. Heffernon that he had a letter from the neighbor . Mr. Sutton also addressed the drainage and stated that the proposed drainage was the best solution they could come up with. Commissioner Costello asked if it would be feasible to build just one house on the lot instead of two? Also, he asked if the Commission allowed the poles to be left in place, would Mr. Sutton put the wires underground? Mr. Sutton replied that it would not be worth it to build just one house. And he would have no problem in leaving the poles and putting the wires underground. Commissioner Keen asked if the applicant would leave the Oak Tree? Also, he asked if Mr. Sutton would consider undergrounding across the street and to the first pole so he would not have any vaults. Mr. Sutton replied that he would leave the Oak tree. Furthermore, if P.G. & E. would let him go under Ash Street and go to the first pole, and if he did not have to put a vault in on the other side of the street, he would not have any problem with doing that at all. Commissioner London asked if Mr. Sutton agreed with Mr. Keen's idea for the undergrounding, would he still consider undergrounding the cable and telephone? Mr. Sutton replied that he would be happy to do that. Commissioner London asked the purpose of the retention basins if most of the water was going to come off the roofs of the garages and drain into the street? He also asked if it was possible 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION. MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 11 to cover the basins with a grate? Mr. Sutton stated that Mr. Campbell and his engineer had come up with the idea of the basins and he did not have an answer for Mr. London about that. He also stated that he felt it would be a problem to cover them with grates as far as liability was concerned. Commissioner Keen asked what the floor elevation of Parcel 1 was in relationship to the street? Mr. Sutton replied that it is lower than the street. Commissioner Keen asked what Mr. Sutton would think about raising the back two Tots, putting a retaining wall between them and then having them drain into the driveway. Mr. Sutton replied that he felt that this would not look good from the street. Don Thompson, 1677 Shell Beach Road, Pismo Beach, spoke in favor of the project. Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Keen asked Mr. Campbell to address the drainage basins and how could they be eliminated. Mr. Campbell replied that Condition of Approval #47 allowed for a choice that either the project will drain to the street, or that the applicant will provide storm water basins subject to certain criteria. Mr. Campbell stated that the Planning Commission could decide to do away with the basins however, the ramifications of this would be, that for the two new parcels, the applicant would need to bring in fill and then Parcel 1 would have to be raised. Vice -Chair Parker asked if it was possible to put a P.G.& E. line across the street and attach it to the existing pole? Commissioner Costello asked if fill was brought in for Parcels 2 and 3, and Parcel 1 was left as it is below the level of the street, wouldn't the Planning Commission be making Parcel 1 a basin? Mr. Campbell stated that the water on Parcel 1 would remain there and that a basin would have to be built. Chair Greene asked Mr. Campbell if he had had a chance to think over the issues Mr. Tiessen and Mr. Sutton had raised with regards to the undergrounding of the utilities and the extensive nature of what was required in relationship to staffs recommendations? Mr. Greene also asked Mr. Campbell if, in his judgement, it was not impractical or unfeasible to do this. Mr. Campbell stated that there is no question in staff's mind that the requirements are extensive and there is also no exception that the requirements fall within the limits set by the Development Code. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 12 Chair Greene asked Mr. Campbell if, not withstanding all the new information, he felt comfortable that staff's position was appropriate? Mr. Campbell stated that staff felt this was the correct interpretation of the Development Code. Mr. Greene stated that the letter from Ms. Boswell indicated that she did not want any one on her property placing utilities underground. If the utility pole that serves her property is removed, how does the City deal with the property owner's objection? Mr. Campbell stated that this was uncharted territory for him and it would be something that he would have to discuss with the City's attorney. Commissioner London asked if Mr. Sutton's proposal that he underground the wires to pole number two (2) on the Exhibit A, and then underground the cable and phone, seemed feasible to staff? Mr. Campbell stated that he believed that it seemed feasible. Commissioner Costello stated that he admires the desire that the City put as many utility wires underground as possible. He feels that it is an appropriate measure that the City asks for this and he also thinks it is appropriate that staff asked for the undergrounding to be done in accordance with the Development Code. Mr. Costello stated that this was a neighborhood where there would be very little additional development and the existing lines would remain pretty much where they were at this point. He then felt that he had to ask himself the question, what defines infeasible or impractical and when the Planning Commission should make a decision on what is an undue burden on an applicant. Mr. Costello said that the density in the surrounding neighborhood is Multi - Family and is similar to what the project is however, he feels that they have pushed the envelope on the setbacks and the lot width and the PUD is a means of adjusting to this and making the project fit. Finally, Mr. Costello stated that he believed that this was a reasonable project and would have only minor impacts to the area. He believes some sort of compromise could be reached if the power was put under Ash Street to the existing poll and then provide service to Parcels 1, 2 and 3 with underground utilities. He believes this would be a reasonable solution. Vice -Chair Parker stated that she had a question for staff. The Development Code states that the minimum setback between residences is 10 feet. This project shows 8 feet between the Parcel 2 home and Parcel 3 home with the fireplace in- between. Where is the setback actually measured from? Ms. Heffernon stated that if you wanted to get very technical you could do an average. Ms. Heffernon also stated that the PUD process is all about deviations from the Development Code. Ms. Heffernon said that she was under the assumption that the PUD process would allow this deviation to occur. 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 13 Commissioner London stated that with the accommodation that Mr. Sutton is willing to make as far as the issue with the undergrounding of the utilities, is a good compromise. He felt that this was the type of housing that Arroyo Grande could use more of. Commissioner Keen asked Mr. Sutton if, when he got the letter from Ms. Boswell, was she concerned just about the area from the power poll to her house? Or, she doesn't think this should be an easement where you could dig at all? Mr. Sutton stated that the way Ms. Boswell explained it to him was that, because she is an elderly lady, she did not want her house touched or anyone on her property doing anything to the power. He further stated that he was concerned because one of the polls is halfway up on her property and this is still going to take something from the City to get him permission to go onto her property in order to do any digging. Commissioner Keen went on to say that in respect to the undergrounding of the utilities, he would like to change the Conditions of Approval to go across Ash St to pole number 2 and also underground along the frontage of the property. As far as the Oak tree is concerned, Mr. Keen wants the Oak tree saved. Finally, as much as he hates to see the retention basins, he realizes that there is no choice but to have them. Vice -Chair Parker stated that in the Development Code Chapter 9 -06, additional performance standards for PUDs, E -3, it stated "building setbacks required by the underlying zoning district may be reduced or waived for lots created through a PUD, provided the lot coverage requirements for the district are met by the project. In no case shall the minimum separation between buildings on adjacent Tess than 10 feet, or less than required by State law ". "Except, however, for adjacent lots where a common wall is a shared zero lot line ..." Ms. Parker stated that this indicated to her that the Planning Commission could not approve a project with a 3 -foot setback. Ms. Heffernon stated that on the left -hand side of Parcel 3 the setback is at 3 feet but the right - hand side of Parcel 3 there is a five -foot setback. There is 10 feet between the buildings on Parcel 2 and Parcel 3. Vice -Chair Parker stated that she would like to see the Oak tree remain on the property. Finally, she talked about the undergrounding of the utilities. She stated that the Planning Commission had addressed this before and the Commission did not believe that cost was a factor of whether or not to put the utilities underground. Regarding this situation, she understood why pole number one in the back did not need to be put underground. She is in favor of putting as many of the lines underground as possible in the front yards of the three houses. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 14 Chair Greene stated that staff and the Planning Commission had spent a lot of time tonight deciding the issue of the undergrounding of the utilities and he did not feel that this needed to be done. He said that he was disappointed because this project came before the Planning Commission and the staff last year and all the problems with undergrounding the utilities should have been ironed out at that time. He told the applicant that he was disappointed in how this had been handled and he did not feel the applicant had any excuse by saying that they did not know what the City was going to recommend. Mr. Greene stated that this should have been resolved before tonight's meeting. Furthermore, Mr. Greene said that he did not like to have to make these kind of judgement calls without having all the information with which to act on. Mr. Greene stated that he did not know what the solution was to undergrounding the utilities, he doesn't know how much it will cost, and he has no way of assessing whether this will make the project financially unacceptable to the applicant, etc. Finally, Mr. Greene stated that his initial idea was to refer this back to the applicant and staff to work out some kind of agreement. However, Mr. Greene said that after listening to the other Commissioners, he has decided it would be best to consider the project. It was Mr. Greene's understanding that by undergrounding from pole number 2 to pole number 3, leaving poles numbers 1 and 3, and by undergrounding the utilities east /west across the driveway , this would be a satisfactory compromise. Mr. Greene stated that it is his objective to support staff with the undergrounding issue because he believes overhead utilities are "blight" and eliminating them makes the City a little more attractive. Mr. Greene said that he agrees with staff that it is not infeasible or impractical to remove the poles, it just costs a lot of money. Mr. Greene stated that he wanted the Oak tree identified on the plans. Finally, Mr. Greene stated that he would like the language changed in Condition of Approval No. 21. It should be modified to read that the "24 inch Oak tree located on Parcel 2 shall be retained and the covered patio should be modified to accommodate the Oak tree ". Also, Condition of Approval No. 56 should be amended to read that the existing overhead public utilities on site shall be placed underground as shown in the amended Exhibit A. Commissioner London asked if this included the undergrounding of the utilities to the existing house? He was told that that was included. Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 00 -1745 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 99 -003, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 99 -003 WITH ASSOCIATED ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW, FINDING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, LOCATED AT 1171 ASH STREET AND APPLIED FOR BY SUTTON'S CONSTRUCTION ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION. MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 15 with modifications to Condition of Approval numbers 21 and 56 and Exhibit A as amended. Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: ROLL CALL VOTE YES Commissioner Costello YES Commissioner Keen YES Commissioner London YES Vice -Chair Parker YES Chair Greene Chair Greene stated that there would be a ten (10) minute recess. Chair Greene reconvened the Planning Commission meeting. ITEM II. C. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2328, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 99 -001; LOCATION - 1190 EL CAMINO REAL; APPLICANT - "S &S" HOMES Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner, stated that the applicant had previously submitted two pre - applications for the project site - one was for a 20 -lot subdivision in 1996, and the other was for a 36 -unit subdivision in 1998. Based on staff comments, the applicant had reduced the proposed number of lots to 26, which is the project being considered tonight. Ms. Heffernon said that the site is about 4.5 acres in size and was developed with a single - family residence, detached garage and barn. The barn is the only structure remaining on the property. Also existing on the site is a 50 -foot wide access easement that extends along the south and west property lines to serve the three parcels located behind the project. The proposed project is to subdivide the property into 26 parcels and construct one and two - story single - family residences. The applicant proposes one looped access road off of El Camino Real to serve the residences and an emergency access between Tots 4 and 5 connecting Stonecrest Drive to El Camino Real. The Planned Unit Development application is to allow flexibility in the residential development standards in order to provide a more efficient use of the land. Specifically, the applicant is requesting deviation from the minimum lot size, lot width, lot depth, and setback requirements of the Development Code. All other Development Code requirements are met, including maximum lot coverage, number of guest parking spaces, and amount of private open space. Some of the issues discussed in the staff report include oak tree protection, traffic circulation, undergrounding of utilities and street improvements. With regard to oak tree protection, a "Tree Preservation & Removal Plan" was prepared for the project site, which provides an inventory of the existing oak trees and their condition, estimates the project impacts, and recommends tree protection measures. According to the report, the project would remove 17 of the 57 coast live oak trees existing on the property. All of the recommended tree protection measures have been included in the conditions of approval. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 16 With regard to traffic impacts, the traffic analysis prepared for the project concludes that traffic operations at intersections in the vicinity of the project could accommodate the additional trips without reducing the level of service to an unacceptable level. No project specific mitigation measures were therefore identified, and the project has been conditioned to pay the City's standard Traffic Impact and Signalization fees. Regarding the other two issues, the applicant has written a formal request that the Planning Commission provide relief from undergrounding certain utility lines, and from constructing a section of street improvements along the property frontage extending to Hillcrest Drive. These requirements are listed as conditions of approval #67 and 73. The applicant's letter is included in the staff report as Attachment 6. In summary, Ms. Heffernon stated that staff was recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a negative declaration, instruct the secretary to file a notice of determination, and approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2328 and Planned Unit Development 99 -001 subject to the findings and conditions contained in Resolution No. 00 -1746. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. John Mack, architect for "S &S" Homes, spoke to the Commission and stated that they had been working on this project with staff for over a year. There have been two (2) SAC meetings, incorporating staff suggestions to modify the plans. The applicant was asked to take into consideration such things as the Live Oaks and a reduction in the density of the project from the allowable 41 homes to 26 residences. Mr. Mack said that this was largely due to designing the homes and the footprints of the buildings to intermingle with the Oak trees to preserve them. He went on to say that they had worked with an arborist to identify key Oak trees on the site and focused on measures that would allow development around the trees. Mr. Mack stated that he wanted to concentrate on the issues that were identified in the mitigation measures and the Conditions of Approval. There were two (2) measures in particular, that he wanted to discuss, which were recently added to the Conditions of Approval that the developer is not in agreement with. First, he stated that he was asking for relief from the street improvements along Hillcrest Drive at El Camino that staff had requested. He stated that "S &S" Homes had never had to extend improvements in front of properties that they did not own. He stated that there were several conditions that had been placed on the project that added up to many thousands of dollars. He is not objecting to all of the improvements, but all together they add up to a great deal of money. Secondly, he was asking for relief from the undergrounding of the utilities for two (2) reasons as follows: • Mr. Mack stated that Oak tree #46 off of Hillcrest Drive extends the full width of the easement that connects to Hillcrest. In order to extend the utilities through this easement the tree would have to be removed. • Mr. Mack stated that when he first spoke to Mr. Campbell it was his understanding of the Development Code that the requirement was to underground the electrical lines servicing the ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 17 project. It is his understanding that there is only one utility line servicing the project at this time. Mr. Mack stated that they would be willing to put the utility lines underground along El Camino Real. Finally, Mr. Mack stated that the requirement to widen El Camino Real could result in the Toss of some Oak trees along that street. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. The following citizens spoke to the Planning Commission concerning this project: Karen Cross - Harmon Jack Hardy Bill Tappan Scott Seelos Howard Mankins Barbara Kusek, Kent Hubert Wendy Beckham Craig Smith, representing "S &S" Homes stated that "S &S" Homes was aware of the Subdivision Map Act requirements for off -site improvements. "S &S" Homes would like to reach a compromise with the City that is in the best interests of the community. Mr. Smith said that they were very concerned about the undergrounding of the utilities and they would like to propose a compromise that would include building the improvements of the additional 130 feet on El Camino to finish out the street widening with the proviso that this was someone else's land and it would require that that land be obtained. However, Mr. Smith said, when the applicants look at the Development Code, they believe the clear intent of the undergrounding requirements was to limit the landowner's exposure to that "6 feet off of the site ", not endlessly down the line to where it might be convenient. Finally, Mr. Smith stated that what they were asking for was that the Planning Commission approve the undergrounding of the utilities along the top property boundary and the undergrounding of the utilities along El Camino, but waive the undergrounding of the utilities along Hillcrest. Mr. Smith felt that this was fair, what the ordinance intended, and that it would not place an unreasonable burden on the property owner. Chair Greene asked Mr. Smith if it was the applicant's intent to construct the curb, gutter and sidewalks all the way down to where Hillcrest and El Camino Real meet? Mr. Smith replied that "S &S" Homes was willing to do this, however there was still the issue of the Subdivision Map Act and the fact that "S &S" Homes did not own the property and therefore did not have the right to build on someone else's property. Chair Greene asked Mr. Smith if the applicant was withdrawing their objections to Condition No. 67 regarding the curb, gutter, and sidewalks along the property frontage extending along Hillcrest Drive? ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 18 Mr. Smith stated that they were, if they are not required to do the undergrounding of the utilities on Hillcrest. Commissioner London asked how the undergrounding would effect the easement owned by Mr. Mankins. John Mack spoke to the Planning Commission and answered some of the concerns that had been raised by the individual citizens. Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing. Vice -Chair Parker had the following concerns and issues: ■ There is currently a 20 -foot private drive around the project, will it be two way traffic and will Mr. Mankins be able to get to his property? • There is not enough parking on the project site. There needs to be other parking than just parking in their garages. Mr. Mack has stated that this project will attract older people with only one car. But if they have guests, there will be no place for them to park. ■ Many of the homes that are being built are 3 bedrooms, which would probably be purchased by families. Most families tend to have more than 1 car, in fact 2 or 3 cars. She feels that parking is a big issue. • Mr. Mack states that he cannot provide more parking because he is trying to save the Oak trees. Maybe the sizes of the homes /or the number of homes could be scaled back to provide room for more parking spaces. • There was a concern with the open space issue and lot coverage. • There are no sidewalks in the project, which would not be good for older people that might buy houses here. Commissioner Costello had the following concerns and issues: • There is only 6 feet between houses on lots numbers 9 and 10. • With regards to the Conditions of Approval - Water program - C4 which states that the project will use 13 acre feet of water per year. Is there some kind of mitigation that would neutralize the 13 -acre feet? • There is not enough visitor parking. Commissioner Keen had the following concerns and issues: • In the Berry Gardens project the Planning Commission required a lot size of at least 6,000 sq. ft. Mr. Keen has noticed that there are several lots that are less than 6,000 sq. ft. He has a problem with reducing lot sizes further. • There is guest parking at one house that is in the driveway. He cannot imagine guest parking this way. • Condition of Approval #47 states that the length of the driveway should be either shorter than 10 feet or longer than 18 feet. What does this mean? Mr. Keen stated that he would like to see all the homes be able to park in front of the garage. ■ Mr. Keen is concerned about having single - family zoning in this area next to industrial zoning. His concern is that once the single - family is settled, they will protest any development next to them. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 19 • It appears that a lot of Oak trees will be removed. There is one place in the SAC minutes that it is suggested it would be better to eliminate one house and save a group of trees. Is this being considered? • Mr. Keen would agree with leaving the utilities on Hillcrest alone. Chair Greene had the following questions and concerns: • That the traffic engineer was asked to analyze the roadway and intersection characteristics for several intersections. Mr. Greene stated that he did not see any focus on Brisco Road interchange and he wanted to ask about this. Mr. Greene and Mr. Mack discussed the traffic impact report that was prepared for the project. After questioning Mr. Mack about some of the information in the report, he stated that he did not agree with the analysis of the peak hour trips at the Brisco Road interchange. • It states in the arborist report that two of the Oak trees marked for removal are tree 58 and 60 which are Oak trees, one having a fifty -four inch trunk. Mr. Greene had the same question as Commissioner Keen, which was why build the house if you are going to remove trees of this age and stature? • Eleven of the 26 lots are less than 6000 sq. ft. Seven of the lots have 17% or less open space. After further discussion the Planning Commissioners gave their opinion of the project and what they felt needed to be done before. Commissioner Costello stated that he felt it was precipitous to make any kind of decision on this problem now. He stated the following: • He would like to see an answer to Chair Green's questions on Traffic. • He is uncomfortable with the proposed parking. • He would rather see less units and more parking. • He felt it was a good use of the property. • The density is too much. Commissioner London stated that: • Considering the topography Mr. Mack had done a good job of designing this project. • He would like to see less units on the project. • He can't see from the traffic report exactly where the traffic will be however, with the limited number of houses he does not believe it would have a significant traffic impact. Commissioner Keen stated that: • He has a problem with Tots less than 6,000 square feet. • He has never liked the idea of having a garage without a driveway. He believes that eventually the owners will fill up the garage with "stuff" and then they will park on the street. • He wanted as many Oak trees saved as possible. • Mr. Keen discussed the street widening and the utilities. Vice -Chair Parker stated that she likes the way this project is and she stated the following: ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 20 • She feels that the multi - family use is a good buffer between the single - family and the industrial zoning. • The applicant should not use Multi - Family zoning figures to build a PUD. If the applicant is going to ask for a PUD and the Planning Commission is going to approve it, which means that they are willing to negotiate all the standards of the Development Code, then we should also be negotiating things like parking. The Planning Commission needs to make sure that the entire project works. ■ If the applicant is going to have a garage with no parking in front of it then it needs to be mitigated by having parking on the street. This would mean a wider street than what is now planned ■ If the applicant is going to have parking away from the residences then there needs to be access for people to get to the residences such as sidewalks and wider streets. ■ She has an issue with the distribution of the open space. • It is not the intention of the City to create a project that doesn't work just to save the Oak trees. This needs to be balanced out. ■ The applicant needs to work on the entire project. Chair Greene stated that: • He believes that Mr. Mack and "S &S" Homes builds homes of the highest quality. • The decision to develop this property with Single - Family homes is a sound one. The community needs homes of this character. He believes the project is incomplete. He wished that the Planning Commission had heard this project as a pre - application so they could have discussed this in more of a "work- shop" type atmosphere. • He stated that the Planning Commission is required to make certain findings in order to approve the Tentative Tract Map and the Planned Unit Development and read those findings to the applicant. • Before he can approve the project he needs to know that this project will not have a negative impact on the Brisco /Halcyon Road interchange. • He feels that the traffic engineer did not adequately analysis this. • The tendency to "cram" moderate size home on smaller lots is not an appropriate one. There are eleven Tots in this project that are less than 6,000 square feet. He would like to see this changed. ■ He believes that Mr. Mankin's easement creates a significant problem and the homes that abut up against it should probably be reconfigured. • The project should be reduced in density and perhaps the three homes that are closest to the easement should be eliminated. After a brief discussion by the Planning Commission it was decided to continue the project. Commissioner Costello moved that the Planning Commission continue the hearing on Tentative Tract Map 2328 and Planned Unite Development 99 -001 to a date uncertain. Vice -Chair Parker seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. 1 1 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 21 III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS III. A. TIME EXTENSION NO. 00 -002 FOR TESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2207; LOCATION - SOUTH OF ORCHARD AVENUE; APPLICANT - JH LAND PARTNERSHIP, L.P. Because of the 11:00 p.m. time limit in the Planning Commission by -laws, the Planning Commission discussed continuing this project to the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting on June 21, 2000. Tv Green, attorney for the applicant asked the Planning Commission to reconsider and please hear this item at tonight's meeting. He stated there were compelling reasons to do this as follows: • This is a request for an extension of a map. On April 4t the Commission heard the request for the extension however, because there were only 4 Commissioners present at the meeting, there was a two /two vote and the item had to be continued. • The map will expire on June 22, 2000. The next Planning Commission meeting in on June 21, 2000. If the Planning Commission denies the request at the June 21s meeting, the applicant will not have time for the option of appealing the Commission's decision. The Planning Commission discussed the applicant's request and, seeing no other option that would allow the applicant due process, decided to hear the request for Time Extension Case No. 00 -002. Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner presented the staff report and stated that the Planning Commission considered this item on April 4, 2000. Because one of the Commissioners was absent at that meeting, there was a tie vote on the time extension request. This tie vote constituted "no action ", and is now back before the full Commission for consideration and a final decision. The primary issue discussed at the April 4' meeting was traffic impacts. The Commission should note that condition #50 for Tract 2207 requires an offer of dedication for a potential future roadway within the open space easement, allowing an opportunity for a future connector to Orchard Avenue or a Highway interchange. For your reference, a copy of the traffic analysis prepared for the project and of the one prepared for Arroyo Linda have been distributed tonight at the request of Commissioner Costello. To grant a time extension, the Planning Commission must make the finding that there have been no significant changes in the General Plan, Municipal Code, or character of the area within which the project is located that would cause the approved project to be harmful to the public health, safety, or welfare. Since approval of the project in 1997, there have been no significant changes to either the General Plan, Municipal Code or character in the project area that could cause the project to be harmful to the public health, safety, or welfare. To deny a time extension request, specific factual findings must be made that are based upon substantial evidence and are consistent with the Subdivision Map Act. Section 66498.1 of the Act states the required finding that failure to deny the time extension would "place the residents of the subdivision or the immediate community, or both, in a condition dangerous to their health or safety, or both." ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 22 In the event that the Planning Commission determined that the findings can be made to deny the time extension request, the Planning Commission must provide staff with specific factual findings based on substantial evidence presented at this hearing. The resolution would then be scheduled for consideration at the next regularly scheduled Planning commission meeting. To conclude, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution, granting a granting a second, one -year time extension for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2207. The Planning Commission discussed the Time Extension and some of their concerns with the project. Their main issue was the increase in traffic that the project would produce in this area. The Planning Commission determined that there had been no significant changes in the General Plan, Municipal Code, or character of the area within which the project is located that would cause the approved project to be injurious to the public health, safety, or welfare. Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission adopt: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING A ONE -YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2207, LOCATED SOUTH OF ORCHARD AVENUE APPLIED FOR BY JH LAND PARTNERSHIP, L.P. Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: ROLL CALL VOTE YES Commissioner Costello YES Commissioner Keen YES Commissioner London YES Vice -Chair Parker YES Chair Greene RESOLUTION NO. 00 - 1741 IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS None V. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENT None VI. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP REPORTS None VII. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Costello the Planning Commission was adjourned at 1:30 a.m. on June 7, 2000 to the next scheduled meeting on June 21, 2000. 1 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 2000 PAGE 23 ATTEST: Kathleen Fryer, Commi AST • CON, I Clerk NT: Kerry Mc . nts Community Development Director kti-WAgell Laurence Greene, Chair 1 1 1