Loading...
PC Minutes 1999-09-07ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 Page 1 of 12 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 MINUTE APPROVAL On motion of Vice -Chair Parker, seconded by Commissioner London, the minutes of August 3, 1999 were tabled to September 21, 1999. On motion of Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Costello, and by a unanimous vote, the minutes of August 17, 1999 were approved with the following corrections: • The word site should be changed to sight on page 2, paragraph 6. • Delete the words "how does it" and add an "s" to "fit ", page 9, line, 2, paragraph 5, • The letters ARC changed to RRM on page 3, last paragraph. • The word if inserted in the third line, page 11, paragraph 2. • The location of the Social Services Department should be changed to 16 Street in Grover Beach vs. Grand Avenue on page 11, paragraph 4. • The word purposed changed to proposed on page 13, paragraph 1. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Otis Pacae, 606 Myrtle Street, spoke to address the coming agenda on the Planning Commission's review of the Arroyo Linda Draft Environmental Impact Report. He stated that he had had a chance to look at the EIR and the Fiscal Impact Analysis report. He is concerned about two issues: • Because of the complexity and the importance of this development for the City he is concerned that there is not enough known in the community about what is going to be discussed at the next meeting. • Secondly, because of the complexity of the issues, could the Commission handle all of the EIR comments in one evening, and what would be the procedure for taking comments on both the EIR and the Fiscal Impact Analysis report? Mr. Page feels that there are very substantial issues pertaining to the use of the property, and the issue of phasing the project. There are also the issues with the ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 Page 2 of 12 use of the property, drainage, water usage, and traffic. Any one of these issues could take up a whole meeting. Mr. Page went on to say that the reason that this is very important is because, when they are considering this project, the Commission is considering the future of Arroyo Grande. He would like the Commission to consider the enormity and importance of the task before them so that a fair, impartial, and objective hearing can be held. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. Correspondence from Lyons & Lyons Certified Public Accountants concerning the request to change the street name of Grand Avenue. SPECIAL PRESENTATION Chair Greene presented a special proclamation to Henry Engen and thanked him for his tenure as Interim Community Development Director. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 99 -002; 1470 NEWPORT AVENUE; APPLIED FOR BY BRUCE AND MARGARET SUMMERS. Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner, presented the staff report to the Planning Commission. She stated that currently the property was developed with a single- family residence, a detached garage, three accessory buildings and a small fruit orchard. The applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide a one -acre parcel into two parcels of 13,292.4 and 30,541.5 square feet respectively. The majority of the lots in the area are between 5,000 and 20,000 square feet and are developed primarily with Single Family residences. The only exception to this is the church located on the western edge of the City limits and Grover Beach. Ms. Heffernon explained that the property is zoned Residential Suburban, but also lies within a design development overlay district. This overlay district has strict development standards that deviate somewhat from the underlying district. When an overlay district is designated over any district, the standards used for that site shall be as set forth in the overlay district, in addition to those regulations specified in the corresponding base district. In situations where the regulations of the base district conflict with the overlay district, the provisions of the overlay district shall govern. Ms. Heffernon explained that in this situation the Design Overlay District 2.6 allows the applicant a lot width of 60 feet, which is less than the 80 feet minimum allowed by the Residential Suburban district. 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 Page 3 of 12 Finally, she said that both of the proposed, parcels meet Development Code requirements for lot size, lot width, and lot depth. Setbacks of the existing structure and accessory structures are also in compliance with the Development Code. The SAC had a concern with the legality of creating a parcel improved with an accessory structure only. The project has been conditioned to remove the accessory structure before the final map can be recorded. Commissioner Costello asked what the widths of the lots were to the east of the project? Ms. Heffernon replied that the two adjacent Tots to the east were both less than 80 feet in width, however she wasn't sure of the exact width. Vice -Chair Parker asked what the distance was between the garage and the lot - line? Ms. Heffernon replied that the distance was five (5) feet. Ms. Parker asked if this met Development Code standards? Ms. Heffernon stated that it did meet the Development Code standards. Commissioner London asked if the shed that was to remain on the main property was also five (5) feet from the property line? Also, was this shed going to be removed if it was less than five (5) feet from the property line? Ms. Heffernon replied that she was not sure what the distance was, but if the shed was Tess than five (5) feet they could always adjust the lot line. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. Bruce Summers, 1470 Newport Ave. spoke to the Planning Commission and answered the following questions for the Commission: • The adjacent lot is 49.9 feet in width. • The garage is seven (7) feet from the property line. • The shed is five (5) feet from the property line. Mr. Summers also stated that he would propose that the word "sale" be removed from the note. He would like to defer the tie -ins and the grading, as well as removal of the shed to a "building permit" instead. Commissioner Costello asked how important the shed was to Mr. Summers? ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 Page 4 of 12 Vice -Chair Parker asked if the garage opened to the back? She also wondered if there would be a common driveway and if there was any kind of a shared use agreement? Mr. Summers stated there would be a shared easement for the driveway. Also, that the garage opens to the east side and there is a circular driveway that goes to the garage. There is no other way to get to the entranceway of the garage. Maggie Summers, 1470 Newport asked staff to explain to her what constituted an accessory structure? Ms. Heffernon stated that the Development Code determines an accessory structure to be any building that is accessory to the primary use. Furthermore, any setbacks for an accessory structure should be the same as they are for the primary structure. Ms. Summers stated that she had an issue with Condition # 8 of the Conditions of Approval that required them to remove the accessory structure, which is located on parcel 2. She asked if instead of requiring this prior to recording the final map, could this be conditioned to be done before a building permit could be issued? She would also like to have the grading postponed until a building permit was issued. Ms. Heffernon explained that Condition # 8 was a standard condition and the requirement of this condition must be met before the map could be recorded. Chair Greene stated for the record that the Conditions of Approval, which are part of Exhibit A attached to the Resolution, are the conditions which bind the applicant with respect to the development of the parcel. Even though the notes, in this case, may give the applicant a different set of instructions, he /she may not record the map until the accessory structure has been removed. He further explained that the applicant should look at the Conditions of Approval for all directives. Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner London stated that he felt this is a beautiful piece of property and it was a shame to divide it, but it was the applicant's prerogative to do so. He would like staff to verify that the accessory is not within five (5) feet of the property line. Commissioner Keen stated that his primary concern was one that he has had before. He asked, "Was the City creating more lots than were originally planned for with regards to the allocation of water." He is very concerned about doubling the number of Tots that were originally allowed for in the General Plan thereby causing a shortage of water. Especially if it were to happen to the point that someone who ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 Page 5 of 12 has a fill -in lot that was not able to get his project approved because there isn't enough water. Mr. Keen stated that whenever the Planning Commission approves a subdivision they require the developer to come up with a water mitigation and neutralization plan. The developer must prove that he /she has enough water to develop the lots he /she is proposing. He went on to say that when the Commission approves the dividing of lots, there is no mitigation required for the applicant to provide water for that lot. Furthermore, Mr. Keen asked when the conditions for any easements on the project are discussed? He does not see anything in the staff report or conditions about that for this project. Mr. Campbell explained that Conditions #34 and #35 addressed the concerns Mr. Keen had about the driveway easements. Commissioner Keen discussed the accessory structure and had some comments on where that structure actually sat on the lot and how close it was to the lot line. Finally, he also stated that he did not like to see the lot divided but it was within the rights of the applicant to do so. Commissioner Costello felt Commissioner Keen had raised a very good point. He stated that this property was zoned RS which allowed for 2.5 houses per gross acre. He theorized that the water was already planned for that number of houses on this piece of property. Commissioner Keen commented that he was not sure when this zoning was first designated and when the water analysis was done for this property. Commissioner Costello said that if he were a property owner and had come in with an in -fill property that he was not allowed to build on because there was no water he could see Mr. Keen point. The decisions the Planning Commission makes with regard to allowing applicants to split lots certainly does effect this, however he wonders if it has the same impact in this circumstance. Mr. Costello stated that he also feels this is a beautiful piece of property and does not like to see it split up, but he does not have a problem with the project. Vice -Chair Parker asked staff: "If a developer were to come in to set up a certain number of lots, would there be mitigation already in place whereby the developer pays a fee for gaining access to water to the City ?" Mr. Campbell replied that historically the City has had a requirement for water retrofitting mitigation measures as part of the EIR. A few months back the ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 Page 6 of 12 retrofitting requirement was reconsidered by City Council. The Council thought of converting the retrofitting requirement to a fee that would be available to Developers. The goal was that the City would do the retrofitting. His understanding was that the Council decision was being applied to new uses within the City. Further, his understanding was that any project within the City limits that was consistent with the General Plan was not required to do the retrofitting. Mr. Campbell also stated that the water planning that has been done for the City was based on the best estimates that have been prepared for General Plan build - out. Vice -Chair Parker stated that the lots next to the subject lot were also less than 80 feet in width. Therefore, she did not have a problem allowing this project width to be 60 feet. She further stated that she was concerned about the shared use of the driveway and the turn into the garage, especially because there was only five (5) feet between the lot line and the garage. She was also concerned that the shed was five (5) feet from the lot line and would like to see that verified. Finally, she agreed with staff that the large shed on the second parcel would have to be removed before the Final Map could be recorded. Commissioner Costello had a final question. If the accessory building is only three (3) feet from the property line then one of three (3) things would have to happen: 1. The shed would have to be moved. 2. They would have to ask for a Variance. 3. They would have to asked for a Variance to move the lot line. Is his understanding correct that one of the above three- (3) things would have to happen? Staff answered that he was correct in his understanding. Chair Greene stated that, as usual, Commissioner Keen had raised some insightful and thoughtful issues. He stated that in the future it would ,be helpful to have some input from City Staff regarding City policy on lot splits and the impact on projected water usage based upon build -out. He had no other comments to make on the project. Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission approve: RESOLUTION 99 -1706 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 99 -002, LOCATED AT 1470 NEWPORT AVENUE, APPLIED FOR BY BRUCE AND MARGARET SUMMERS ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 Page 7 of 12 Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved by the following vote: Roll Call Vote Aye Commissioner Costello Ave Commissioner Keen Ave Ave Ave Commissioner London Vice -Chair Parker Chair Greene B. GRAND AVENUE: REQUEST TO CHANGE STREET NAME FROM GRAND AVENUE TO EAST GRAND AVENUE. Don Spagnolo, Director of Public Works, gave a brief report to the Planning Commission. He stated that the City of Arroyo Grande had received a request from a business owner to rename Grand Avenue. Under the proposal the dividing line for this renaming would be Oak Park Boulevard. The section to the east, in Arroyo Grande, would be East Grand Avenue. Mr. Spagnolo stated that it was important for the Planning Commission to understand that the street numbers would remain the same as they are now. The cost to the City to do the name change would be approximately $2,400. The Public Works Department would only have to change or modify some the street signs. There are also two (2) Cal -Trans signs that would have to be modified. Mr. Spagnolo explained that in accordance with Section 8 -2.06 of the Municipal Code, it is required that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on this issue. The Traffic Commission has already reviewed the request and recommended to the City Council that this request be approved. Commissioner London asked if the Public Works Department had received any comments from the City of Grover Beach? Mr. Spagnolo stated that staff had not received any official statement from the City of Grover Beach. They had received a letter in support of the change from the Grover Beach Chamber of Commerce. Also, Mr. Spagnolo had had a brief discussion with the Community Development Director of Grover Beach and they had not done anything about this issue as of that time. Vice -Chair Parker stated that it was her understanding, according to the staff report, that the businesses would not be required to change their signs or addresses until they were ready to. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 Page 8 of 12 Mr. Spagnolo stated that the businesses along Grand Avenue would have plenty of notice before the name change of the street would go into effect. Commissioner Costello asked how much of a problem this really was at this point in time? Mr. Spagnolo stated that the only information that he has is what is in the letters the Public Works Department has received from the business owners. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. Nan Fowler - 630 Cerro Circle, stated that she has had her bookstore at 1405 Grand Avenue for over 14 years. In this time she has noticed an increase with the confusion in the addresses between Grover Beach and Arroyo Grande. She explained that it was not only tourists that were confused with the numbers on Grand Avenue but also local people who look up an address on Grand Avenue and don't see whether it is in Grover Beach or Arroyo Grande. She stated that she believes adding an East to the street name can alleviate this and no street numbers need to be changed. The Chamber of Commerce of both cities supports this idea as well as many of the businesses along Grand Avenue with whom she has spoken. Also, both the Police and Fire Departments feel this will help them find addresses more quickly. Ms. Fowler would like to see the name change done by the spring of 2000 because then the new phone books that come out in the fall would have the new addresses in them. Tim Brown, 125 Allen Street stated that he worked at 1562 Grand Avenue in Grover Beach, which is the State of California Department of Industrial Relations. He said that he has approximately 70 to 80 walk in customers a month. He told the Commission that from his experience on a daily basis, there is mass confusion from these people as to where they are. He told the Commission that if they decided to change the street name it would make it much easier for his customers. Linda Ostv, 309 East Cherry stated that she was in support of changing the name because it was very confusing to people. Heather Jensen, Executive Officer of the Arroyo Grande Chamber of Commerce stated that she would like to reiterate the stand the Chamber had taken on this proposal. She hates to see it regarded as a name change but would like to see it looked at as more of a geographical designation on east /west. She would like the Commission to consider the change and stated that the letter from the Board of 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 Page 9 of 12 Directors states a strong message that this would be very beneficial to all concerned. Ralph Abbott, 630 Cerro Vista Circle works at Katch -go Mobile Service Station at 1295 Grand Avenue. He stated that there is rarely a day that he is working that at least one, if not more, customers ask him where a certain address is because they are in the 1200 block of Grand Ave. and cannot find the address. Designation of East Grand Avenue for Arroyo Grande is a very sound idea and will eliminate this confusion. Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing. Vice -Chair Parker stated that she wanted to thank Nan Fowler for coming up with a possible solution to this on -going problem. In reading all the letters that have been submitted, both pro and con, one of the main complaints seemed to be the significant cost of changing the street name. She does not believe $2,400 to be a significant cost when you consider that so many businesses would benefit from this. She also believes that because this has the support of the City's emergency services and the Chamber of Commerce, as well as the Traffic Commission, she is very much in favor of this. As far as the position of the postal service, although she is not discrediting it, if they have a problem with deciding between East Grand or not, they could just look at the word Grand. Commissioner Keen stated that he is convinced that there has always been a problem with confusion amongst the local citizens, not even considering the tourists, because of the street name. He is very much in favor of this change. The postal service should remember that Grover Beach has a different Zip Code so they should be able to figure out where mail would go. Commissioner Costello also thanked Nan Fowler for bringing this solution to the City. He stated that he doesn't have really strong feelings about this issue one way or the other. He feels that people aren't going to pay attention to whether it is in the City or Arroyo Grande or Grover Beach anyway. However, he is not opposed the renaming, he just doesn't think it will solve the problem. Commissioner London stated that this seemed like a simple solution to the problem providing that Cal Trans doesn't change the sign off of the freeway and cause even more confusion. Chair Greene thought that it was a very good idea. He felt that the Commission should recommend to the City Council that they should approve the name change. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 Page 10 of 12 Vice -Chair Parker moved that the Planning Commission approve: RESOLUTION 99 -1707 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE STREET NAME CHANGE OF GRAND AVENUE TO EAST GRAND AVENUE Commissioner Keen seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved by the following vote: Roll Call Vote Ave Commissioner Costello Ave Commissioner Keen Ave Commissioner London Ave Vice -Chair Parker Ave Chair Greene NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. AD HOC TRAFFIC COMMITTEE Don Spagnolo explained to the Planning Commission that some time ago the Traffic Commission had recommended that the City Council establish an Ad -Hoc Committee. The Ad -Hoc Committee would be responsible for reviewing the Commissioners' Handbook and the Municipal Code Section 4 -3.21. These documents were "out of sync" with each other, one having the Commission with more responsibilities than the other. The Ad -Hoc Committee had two (2) meetings concerning the issue. The issue was mainly related to the time at which the Traffic Commission became involved with the development stage of projects. In other words, when would they (the Traffic Commission) become involved with reviewing the development projects that are now being proposed in the City? Mr. Spagnolo went on to say that there was a desire on the part of the Traffic Commission to review the traffic portion of the development plans since they had a tremendous amount of practical knowledge about circulation and the problems that have come up in the past. He went on to say that the Ad -Hoc Committee was composed of two Traffic Commissioners, a City Council Member, a Planning Commissioner and staff. The document has two significant changes that have been made. • It established the Traffic Commissions review of development projects to be at the time they are presented to the Staff Advisory Committee. 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 Page 11 of 12 • The Traffic Commission will now serve as an advisory board to both the Planning Commission and the City Council. Mr. Spagnolo stated that the Traffic Commission will now be provided with the Community Development Departments' Project Status Report. Then, if there are any projects they have concerns about, they can review them. Further, when projects are sent from the Community Development Department to Public Works, they will review them and will take any projects that may have traffic impacts to the Traffic Commission. Commissioner Keen wanted to draw attention to one item in particular. In the Commissioners' Handbook it states that the Traffic Commission has the authority to conduct public meetings on such matters. The language "public meetings" was used so the Commission would not have to notice their meetings and slow down the process of projects going to the Planning Commission. Commissioner London asked about the timing of the Traffic Commission meetings? Mr. Spagnolo stated that the Traffic Commission meetings always came between the City Council Meetings. Vice -Chair Parker asked if the public could attend and speak at the meetings? She stated that the she was excited about the prospect of the Traffic Commission reviewing the projects first and then sending their comments on to the Commission. She felt this would be very helpful. Commissioner Costello stated that he felt the two documents together were now much more consistent and felt this would be a great tool for the Commission. Chair Greene thanked Commissioner Keen and all the members of the Committee that had worked so hard to modify the two documents and bring them into uniformity with each other. He felt the Traffic Commission would be a wonderful resource for the Planning Commission. Vice -Chair Parker moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they accept the changes to the Traffic Commissioners' Handbook and the Municipal Code Section 4 -3.21 and advise the Public Works Director to forward the Planning Commission's comments and concerns to the City Council. Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously carried by a voice vote. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 Page 12 of 12 DISCUSSION ITEMS Commissioner Costello asked if someone could look into the problem of people parking over night at the WaI -Mart even through there are signs that say "NO OVERNIGHT PARKING "? Commissioner London commented on the Five Cities Center landscaping not being done according to the landscape plans and asked how this was being monitored? Mr. McCants replied that he would check with the Parks and Recreation Director who is responsible for monitoring the landscape plan and bring an answer back to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission discussed how best to handle the discussion on the Arroyo Linda Draft EIR. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS None COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP REPORTS None ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. to its next scheduled meeting on September 21,1999. ATTEST: Kathleen Fryer, Commi AS TO CONTENT: Kerry I ants ion Clerk Community Development Director JOiww Gn.eeA Laurence Greene, Chair 1 1