Loading...
PC Minutes 1999-02-161 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION February 16, 1999 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Acting Chair Greene presiding. Present are Commissioners Parker, Keen and Costello. One vacancy exists on the Commission. Staff members in attendance are Community Development 1 Director Jim Hamilton, Contract Planner Tom Buford and Senior Consultant Engineer Craig Campbell. MINUTE APPROVAL The minutes of the regular meeting of January 5, 1999 were approved as prepared on motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Parker, and unanimously carried. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. Letter from Ruth Power dated 2/15/99 concerning Item II.B. (Tentative Parcel Map 98 -553 and Variance 98 -215. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE 99 -001, REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 20 FEET TO APPROXIMATELY 12 FEET; LOCATION: 551 FIELDVIEW PLACE (LOT 14, TRACT 2217); APPLICANT: COKER ELLSWORTH. Contract Planner Tom Buford reviewed the staff report dated February 16, 1999. Mr. Buford explained that the applicant is requesting a reduction in the required rear yard setback for Lot 14, Tract 2217, from the required 20 feet to approximately 12 feet. Ordinance No. 483 C.S., adopted by the City Council on February 25, 1997, approved the rezoning and subdivision of the 15 -acre parcel located at the southwest corner of East Cherry Avenue and Branch Mill Road. The Conditions of Approval included the following: "Applicant shall limit the building envelope for residential Tots 14 through 20 to between 20 feet from the front property line and 20 feet from the rear property line. Building envelope limitation for lots 14 through 20 shall be included in the CC &Rs. Following the commencement of construction on Lot 14, the City received a complaint that the applicant was constructing a residence on the lot within the required rear yard setback. After finding the complaint valid, the applicant stopped construction on the property. Mr. Buford explained that the foundation for the residence proposed for Lot 14 has been poured, and framing is partially complete. Acting Chair Greene opened the hearing for comment and invited the applicant to ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION February. 16, 1999 Page 2 make his presentation. Coker Ellsworth, 129 Bridge Street, applicant for the project, referred to his letters included in the staff report and briefly reviewed some background of the project. He advised that this project has been around for approximately 22 years, noting they had entered into a contract with a prospective buyer in August of 1997. He stated a building permit was actually pulled on July 20, 1998 and about three weeks later a complaint was filed with the City saying the structure was encroaching within the 20 foot setback, and construction was stopped at that time which has been over 7 months ago. After many meetings with the prospective buyers, attorneys, engineers, architects, etc., an agreement has not been reached or solution to the problem that could satisfy both parties. Mr. Ellsworth referred to the site plan and noted that Lot 14 basically is different from the rest of the properties in that it has two rear property lines and, in his opinion, it is really an interpretation of which line uses the rear property. He commented it is their thought that the back one that shows the 30 feet is further back and would be the rear property line. He further stated his opinion that Lot 14 should have never been included in the conditions of approval because it is basically oriented toward the hillside and not Branch Mill and the farming fields. Mr. Ellsworth addressed some of the issues contained in a letter dated February 7, 1999 from Sara Dickens. She mentioned that the buffer was actually only 64 feet. Mr. Ellsworth stated he went out and measured it himself from the back corner of the house to the closest place to where they are actually farming and he came up with 111 feet. Another concern stated in the letter was that if a variance were granted on this lot, would there be requests for variances on other lots in the future. Mr. Ellsworth stated his idea on this is perhaps this is not a variance; maybe Lot 14 should just be eliminated from that Condition of Approval because, in his opinion, this lot is not the same as Lots 15 through 20. Acting Chair Greene asked if Mr. Ellsworth had reviewed the letter dated February 9, 1999 from Mr. Barry Yancosek, prospective buyer of Lot 14? Mr. Ellsworth indicated he did not receive a copy of the letter. Barry Yancosek, 385 McCarthy Avenue. Oceano. referred to his letter and stated he would be happy to answer any questions the Commissioners may have. There being no further comments from the audience, Acting Chair Greene closed the public hearing and restricted further comments to the Commission. Commissioner Keen stated he was on the Planning Commission when this project came before the City originally for approval. He advised that there was a lot of 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMJSSION February 16, 1999 Page 3 discussion involved about the agricultural issue and also the drainage. As he recalled, Lots 14 through 20 were not specifically referred to because at that time they were not numbered and, as he remembers, Tots adjacent to the agricultural land were specified requiring 20 foot rear yard setbacks. With regard to the matter at hand, Commissioner Keen commented that this lot is a little different than the other Tots because it is on the end. He stated that normally a setback would not necessarily be a problem for him, however, he does have a problem with this because of the agricultural part of the requirements, and he needs to be convinced that the residents of the home are not going to be inconvenienced or at risk from having the house that close. He further stated that he personally could not see where 4 or 5 feet are going to make that much difference. Commissioner Parker stated her feeling that it is too bad this problem has come this far because it will be very time consuming for all parties concerned, plus quite costly to move the footprint or change the configuration of the house so that it doesn't fall within that area. She stated she looks at the farm land or the ag land as a buffer zone and realizes that 5 feet shouldn't make much difference, however, when the County Agricultural Commission is already decreasing its recommendation for mitigation from 350 feet to 65 feet, which is the mitigation that Mr. Ellsworth agreed to as well as the Council members, she would find it hard to go back and change that 65 feet. She commented, in her opinion, that would be setting a bad precedent because when problems are mitigated to an agreed upon solution, they need to be adhered to if at all possible. She stated she also believes the reason for the mitigation is because different zones are to be buffered in between, especially now that people are more concerned with agricultural sprays, night farming, dust, noise, etc. She stated she feels that the encroachment issue of housing into the agricultural community is a real serious problem, and especially in Arroyo Grande where our Ag lands are important and we need to protect those lands. With regard to the comment concerning the rear property line, Commissioner Parker stated she doesn't feel the issue is whether the rear property line is the short line or the long line per se, but the issue is the buffer between ag and the house footprint is too short as per the mitigation. She further stated she believes that the agreement between the buyer and seller is a legal issue and not a Commission issue. Another issue is the ditch and the drainage from not only the Ellsworth property but also from the Ag property on the other side, as well as on the other side of East Cherry. She commented, to her knowledge, these concerns have not been resolved and, therefore, the configuration of the ditch at this point is unknown and it does not seem appropriate at this time to count the ditch in as a form of extended buffer zone. Commissioner Costello agreed with Commissioner Parker that it was too bad this had ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING CO1171VIISSION February 16, 1999 Page 4 to come before the Commission and could not be settled between the two parties. He stated that the Agricultural Commissioner had agreed to a mitigation from a 350 - yard setback to a setback of only 20 feet. He felt that it was critical to abide by this mitigation and not overturn what the Ag Commissioner had set forth. Acting Chair Greene observed that it is not within the Planning Commission's jurisdiction to modify or re- interpret the setback conditions as established by the City Council. The 20 -foot setback was established after a number of very long and complex Planning Commission and City Council public hearings on this project. Mr. Ellsworth is inviting the Commission to make the interpretation that the shorter property line that parallels the hillside is the side from which the 20 -foot setback is to be drawn. Commissioner Greene stated he is not prepared to assume that responsibility and that is a question that should be answered by the City Council. The Commission is concerned with the variance and the issue of whether the applicant has made a sufficient showing to establish that each and every element of the variance standards as set forth in the Development Code has been met. He stated he might be more inclined to take the applicant's side if Mr. Yancosek had been supportive of the request and had asked the Planning Commission to make a special finding. However, his letter dated February 9, 1999 indicates that he opposes the variance and, therefore, the issue between Mr. Ellsworth and Mr. Yancosek is a matter, which should be resolved in some legal form. Acting Chair Greene stated it appears that the applicant's case has failed to meet its burden establishing that each and every element of the variance requirements exists. Hearing no further comments on this issue, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1682 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING VARIANCE CASE NO. 99 -001 LOCATED AT 551 FIELDVIEW PLACE, APPLIED FOR BY COKER ELLSWORTH. On motion by Commissioner Parker, seconded by Commissioner Costello, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Costello, Keen, Parker and Acting Chair Greene NOES: None ABSENT: One vacancy exists on the Commission. the foregoing resolution was adopted this 16 day of February 1999. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 98 -553 AND VARIANCE CASE NO. 98- 1 1 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION February 16, 1999 Page 5 215; APPLICANT: PATRICK SPARROW; LOCATION: 423 ORCHARD STREET. Associate Planner Tom Buford reviewed the applicant's request for approval of the Tentative Parcel Map to divide an 18,665 square foot lot into two separate parcels of 9,657 square feet and 9,008 square feet. He advised that the subject parcel is located on the east side of Orchard Street, north of Cherry Avenue. There is a single - family residence with a separate garage currently located on the north half of the property (Lot 1), which is the 9,657 square foot parcel. Mr. Buford noted that there are some utility and condition issues that Public Works has examined, identified and drafted conditions for. He advised if the Commission elects to approve the request and adopt the proposed resolution, the reference to Exhibit B in Condition #30 should actually be reference to Exhibit E. Senior Consultant Engineer Craig Campbell reviewed the section of the Development Code requiring underground utilities. He pointed out that the requirement is subject to the exceptions stated in Section 9- 15.0500, including those cases where the topographic soil or other conditions render underground placement impractical or unfeasible. This exception requires a formal written request and the specific written approval of the City Engineer and Community Development Director. The Public Works Department has indicated which of the utilities will be required to be placed underground and has reviewed the time, effort and expense that would be required to underground utilities. After review, it was concluded that to underground some of the utilities would be unfeasible. He stated that this conclusion is based, in part, on the character of the neighborhood, the presence of overhead utilities in the vicinity, and the cost and disruption required to underground all utilities. In response to Commissioner Parker's question regarding setbacks, Mr. Campbell advised that there is an existing 6 foot sewer easement along the southerly line of Lot B, so even if there is a 5 foot setback, they would have to stay outside of the easement With regard to a letter received from Ruth Power, 220 W. Cherry Avenue, Acting Chair Green stated one interpretation of her letter appears that she is asking the applicant to agree to a 10 ft. setback along the south property line between the new proposed lot and her lot. Another way to interpret it is she is asking the applicant to construct the driveway and garage along the new property line that is being created between the old lot and the new lot. Mr. Buford stated one interpretation he feels would be most favorable to Mrs. Powers is to have the requirement for the driveway go down the southerly part of the property, and have the garage subject to a 10 foot setback, and then the residence would be placed on the northerly side of the driveway. After staff's presentation, Acting Chair Greene opened the hearing for public comment. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION February 16, 1999 Page 6 Patrick Sparrow. 423 Orchard Street. applicant, stated he and his wife Terri have read and agree with the proposed Conditions of Approval. With regard to Mrs. Power's letter, Mr. Sparrow stated there would be approximately a 40 -foot setback from the rear property line to her house. He briefly described the site plan and placement of the structures on the property. He advised that the home they are proposing is approximately 2,000 square feet, it is a single story, and the setbacks and open space are very compatible with surrounding properties. He commented he feels that Mrs. Powers' concerns about being invaded by a home could be mitigated if she could see what is being proposed, and inquired if there was some way to work that into the approval process. In response to Mr. Sparrow's question regarding Condition #11 under "FIRE FLOW /FIRE HYDRANTS ", Mr. Campbell stated this is a Building Department Condition. However, normally when they want a fire hydrant they fill in that condition and, since it would be the Public Works Department that would approve the fire hydrant construction plan, he doesn't see this as meaning a requirement for a fire hydrant. He advised this is more of a standard condition stating what the minimum fire flow of the neighborhood is for a residential project and, in his opinion, the neighborhood already meets that requirement. Commissioner Keen commented he doesn't agree with that condition at all and he feels it would be unfair to require an upgrade of the neighborhood just for one lot. Mr. Buford stated there are conditions in the neighborhood and conditions with the property that led staff to believe that the findings for a variance could be made. He further stated he believes that Mrs. Powers' concerns have to do with the impact on her property and, in his opinion, those are most easily resolved by designating and making sure that the 10 foot property setback is on the southerly portion of Lot 2. He suggested the following condition: "The 10 foot minimum side yard setback required in the Development Code for Lot 2 shall be located on the southerly property line and shall be measured from the southerly property line." Acting Chair Greene noted that if the proposal suggested by Mr. Buford is adopted, then Mr. Sparrow's proposal that he build his house so there is a 7 ft. setback on the property line next to Mrs. Powers' property will be in conflict with the added condition, and perhaps we will be inviting a request from him for a variance as soon as we vote to support this. Mr. Buford suggested various ways to deal with the issue. He noted that staff has not met with Mrs. Powers and are trying to fathom what her concerns are from her brief letter, and if the Planning Commission wants to do so, staff could go out and talk to her and take a look at her specific property. 1 1 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION February 16, 1999 Page 7 Community Development Director Jim Hamilton pointed out that the applicant is requesting a variance from the lot width standard, however, they have not requested a change from the same standard that would be applied in this district with a lot that met the full 80 foot requirement and he is not sure it is appropriate or necessary to require a different standard of this lot than would be required of one that met the full width requirement within the district. He noted it is not the house design; its the requirement within the district and the question can this property when it is designed comply with all the other standards, except that for which a variance is being requested? He stated, in his opinion, it is not really necessary for the Commission to establish a special standard. They are already going to meet the standard on one side and they are going to exceed the standard on the other side with the 7 feet they are proposing. He clarified that in this particular case, with the plans that are being presented by Mr. Sparrow, there would be 7 feet on one side and 12 feet on the other side; both would be exceeding the standard within the district. With regard to the fire flow requirement, Mr. Hamilton stated there is a minimum fire flow requirement and, in his opinion, the Fire and Building Department will look at those issues and they have been able to find solutions in the past He commented that fire flow is a life, health and safety issue and he would not feel comfortable having it waived. Hearing no further comments from the audience, Acting Chair Greene closed the public portion of the hearing and restricted further comments to the Commission. Commissioner Costello stated he has no specific comments at this time. Commissioner Keen stated he would be opposed to putting the condition of requiring the 10 -foot setback on the south property line. He commented that it is going to be over 6 feet, and he believes that Mrs. Powers may perceive that the house is going to be built in her back . yard and will be a problem. He didn't believe the Commission should condition this property with that 10 foot setback on that side and, as far as Mr. Sparrow knows, when the bids come in, this lot may have to be for sale. He further stated he still doesn't like the fire flow condition. Commissioner Parker agreed with Commissioner Keen, stating she would be opposed to adding the condition requiring the 10 -foot setback on the south property line. She also agrees with Mr. Hamilton that at this time the Commission is considering a lot split and she feels it does fall under the category of a lot split. Acting Chair Greene agreed with Commissioners Keen and Parker in that placing a setback on one particular line is probably an improvident idea at this point, and he is ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION February 16, 1999 Page 8 prepared to follow Mr. Hamilton's recommendation and leave it up to the applicant to decide where the house is to be built and, as long as the Development Code is being complied with, that should be satisfactory to everybody. With respect to Condition #11, he stated it is his belief that the City is not going to make the applicant responsible for bringing the area up to code on that issue. He commented he is prepared to go forward and support the applicant's request for a parcel map and variance. There being no further discussion, the following action was taken: Commissioner Costello moved to approve the Lot Split with the recommended Conditions of Approval as modified by changing Exhibit B to Exhibit E in Condition #30 RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1683 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE INSTRUCTING THE SECRETARY TO FILE A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 98 -553 AND VARIANCE CASE NO. 98 -215 LOCATED AT 423 ORCHARD STREET, APPLIED FOR BY PATRICK AND TERRI SPARROW. On motion by Commissioner Costello, seconded by Commissioner Keen, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Costello, Keen, Parker and Acting Chair Greene NOES: None ABSENT: One vacancy exists on the Commission The foregoing resolution was adopted this 16 day of February 1999. NON - PUBLIC HEARING - PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A 28,750 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE AND RETAIL BUILDING; APPLICANT: ZADDIE BUNKER TRUST /GARY WHITE; LOCATION: 1400 WEST BRANCH STREET Associate Planner Tom Buford reviewed the staff report dated February 16, 1999. He advised that the Staff Advisory Committee and the Architectural Advisory Committee reviewed the project. He noted that the comments of the Architectural Advisory Committee looked perhaps for plans in greater detail in terms of the elevations, colors and give a better picture as to what the impact of this project would be as it steps 1 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION February 16, 1999 Page 9 up back from West Branch Street. At the same time it was recognized that as part of a pre - application review the applicant was especially interested in finding out whether he was headed in the right direction in terms of architectural treatment and in terms of the manner in which he was placing buildings on the site, and in terms of circulation. He noted that the project was generally well received by the Architectural Review Committee. Acting Chair Greene opened the discussion for public comment. Gary White, stated he is the applicant for the project and is also representing the Zaddie Bunker Trust, and will be available to answer any questions the Commission may have. Commissioner Parker referred to the Architectural Advisory Committee's comments regarding the exit on to West Branch Street, noting that is a tough place to pull in and out of. She inquired if there would be any way to move that driveway down to the North. Mr. White stated he believes the intent was to be exit only north or westbound onto Branch Street out of the property, and entering the property only from the east or south direction. Mike Obyoschi. Architect for the project, responded to Commissioner Parker's questions regarding the retaining walls, elevation and grading plans for the site. Commissioner Keen stated the developer should be aware of the fact that the City is really interested in saving any and all healthy trees. He also questioned how the 35- foot height was established. He stated since the back building slopes up so much, in his opinion, it would look better in the total project if it could be retained at one story and maybe adjusting some height and square footage in one of the other buildings. Steve Cool, stated he is an attorney in Arroyo Grande and is also Gary White's partner in this project. He noted that the staff report described the project as being an office and retail building, and he wanted to make sure that the Commission does not get mis- directed by that description. He advised that the project is a very high quality, high level professional office development and the only retail aspect of the development is that a small part of the building at Camino Mercado and West Branch Street may be set aside for perhaps a low level retail shop, gift shop, small coffee shop, or something of that nature that may be as much directed toward serving the professional offices in the project as it is for the public. Also, to clarify what might have been a misunderstanding concerning access, Mr. Cool advised that the primary access into the project will actually be on Camino Mercado, and access on the West Branch driveway was not planned for north bound or west bound traffic, however, ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION February 16, 1999 Page 10 access on to that driveway was planned for east bound traffic. Hearing no further comments from the public, Acting Chair Greene referred the matter back to the Commission for questions and comments. Commissioner Parker stated she likes this spot and she believes it is a good use for this commercial zoning. She commented she would be interested in having the traffic study completed before this is approved so that staff will have those figures when they address the traffic issues. She further commented she doesn't really have a problem with the right turn in and out of West Branch, other than concerns already addressed, and she would have a concern if there was only one access into this project. She stated she feels it is important to have an access on to West Branch, but also believes it is important to put it into a place that causes the least amount of problems for the West Branch traffic. As far as Building #3 being two levels, in her opinion, it would probably depend upon where the hotel lies. If the two levels on Building 3 would in any block any viewpoint from the hotel, that might be a problem. She stated she likes the fact that it steps down and the fact that some of the trees that will be in there will enhance the area and make it look more like Arroyo Grande. She expressed concern about the green space and realized 5% is specified, but it seems there will be a lot of space around the east side that will be open space and this will help the way it looks a lot. She stated the only major issue she would have is envisioning a 20 -foot wall on West Branch Street before the buildings begin. She feels that is excessive and suggested stepping it down if there is any way possible to put in smaller retaining walls, such as perhaps a 5 foot wall in the front and then a 5 foot wall half way through rather than a 9 or 10 foot wall in the front. Commissioner Costello stated he likes the general concept, however, he does have some real concerns about traffic and would be very interested in seeing what the traffic study has to show. He also agrees with the idea of balancing the access in the two different directions. Commissioner Keen reiterated his concern voiced earlier regarding the height of the two -story building. He commented that he feels the traffic needs to be addressed, however, it is not a major concern in his opinion, because of the use being office /professional type buildings. He agreed with the Architectural Advisory Committee comments that no trees be removed until plans are approved and the project is ready for construction. He stated he likes the project and he likes the design of it. Acting Chair Greene stated he is going to be looking to see what sort of traffic impacts this project will create. He stated if it appears that this project will increase 1 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION February 16, 1999 Page 11 existing traffic problems, it may be his request that the applicant considers a reduction somehow in the density of the project, which may mean a reduction in the square footage. He noted that, according to the staff report, the maximum lot coverage for the HS zone is 50 %, and he views that as being the maximum and not the target. He commented that the recommendation is 24,300 square feet, and he is not sure whether that represents 50% or 30% of the lot coverage, and he would be interested in hearing some discussion of that issue. He stated another issue that may need to be addressed is the possibility of some form of signalization at the corner of Camino Mercardo and West Branch Street, and this issue may be covered in the traffic study. He suggested that color plans or 3D modeling might help the Commission understand how these buildings will look and help to understand the elevations a little better. Acting Chair Greene agreed with Commissioner Keen that Building #3 seems to be overly massive as it appears in the diagrams and the elevations. He is also interested in the way the applicant plans to landscape the property and what is proposed in terms of natives and drought tolerant plants. He also shares the same concern as Commissioner Keen regarding any oak trees that are going to be removed, and he would like to have some more definitive correlation between the trees that are considered in poor condition and the ones that are going to be removed. He asked that these be numbered on a separate diagram so that he can have some correlation between the trees the applicant thinks need to be removed and the location on the diagram where they exist. With regard to signage, Acting Chair Greene stated the fact it is a professional building makes this issue less pronounced, and a guideline on where signs might be located how the applicant intends to sign the project would be interesting. He stated overall his views are favorable and whatever can be done to maintain the rural character of the City in compliance with the General Plan is something he would encourage. DISCUSSION ITEMS - None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS - .There was a brief discussion regarding the Planners' Institute being held in March. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP REPORTS. Community Development Director Jim Hamilton briefly reviewed projects scheduled for Planning Commission review and also reported on the status of various projects that have previously been heard and /or approved by the Commission. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION February 16, 1999 Page 12 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. by Acting Chair Greene. ATTEST: Kathleen Fryer, Actin es Hamilton, AICP ommunity Development Director ��( .I/UM('0) �OQ fission Clerk Laurence Greene, Acting Chair